Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:27:36 +0200 From: Anders Lowinger <anders.lowinger@packetfront.com> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: do we support non contiguous netmasks ? Message-ID: <4072B048.2000509@packetfront.com> In-Reply-To: <4072AA91.DA00A9F3@freebsd.org> References: <20040331005914.A6934@xorpc.icir.org> <40712A8F.9000704@packetfront.com> <40716208.808CF084@freebsd.org> <4072916D.101@packetfront.com> <40729B7A.2C984BD3@freebsd.org> <4072A169.9010206@packetfront.com> <4072AA91.DA00A9F3@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You are right. I was looking to quickly. However at least my Cisco > doesn't like it: "Bad mask 0xFFFFFD00 for address", IOS 12.2(10). As I mentioned in my first email, Cisco only supports contignous netmasks. I was just trying to elaborate on when/why non-contignous netmasks would be good to have. I'm pretty sure no-one is using them.... > Never heard of that (only supernets/subnets with respect to classful > notation), never done it and at least my Cisco 7500 doesn't like it. > So I doubt others have got their Cisco to like it. Correct. This is one of the first thing they mention in the manuals. /Anders
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4072B048.2000509>