> I've installed z/VM 5.2 and I have this in my GATEWAY statement, and it > works fine: > > 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.50.1 ETH1 8192 > 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.50.1 ETH1 8192
(snip) > As an excercise, I thought I could supernet these 2 into 1 like this: > 192.168.2.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.50.1 ETH1 8192 If the third field is the next hop router, shouldn't it be in the same subnet? That would at least be within the tradition of routing tables. -- glen
