Glen, the only reason for routing statements is to reach networks which are not in the same subnet. The ip stack must only have an interface to the router. But a routing inside the same subnet makes no sense. But I have also made the experience, that a per-default-class-c address can't be supernetted. If you try the same thing with a 10.x.y.z or 172.16.x.y address everything works fine. Therefore I prefer the 10.x.y.z addresses for local LANs, because you have nothing to do with supernetting. On the other hand, is it worth to break your head for eliminating one line of configuration?
Franz Josef ----- Original Message ----- From: "glen herrmannsfeldt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:32 AM Subject: [VMESA-L] superneting and gateways > > 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 > >
