Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 21:38:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@haven.uniserve.com> To: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re(2): IP problem with 950412-SNAP (and earlier -SNAPs) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950423212915.5456A-100000@haven.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199504240354.WAA20416@bonkers.taronga.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, Peter da Silva wrote: > Well, I think it kinda violates TCP/IP requirements, yes. I guess it's > workable, but then you lose the ability to route to each address. The difficulty is not making the routing work, which it certainly does, but how do you *specify* additional routes which is rather annoying. I don't really understand in what way this "violates TCP/IP" requirements. All modern routers that I've used don't make this restriction, which is a good thing when you have 30 network interfaces. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950423212915.5456A-100000>