From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Apr 23 21:27:22 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id VAA21210
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 21:27:22 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA21202
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 21:27:16 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <199>; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 21:40:01 -0700
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)
In-Reply-To: <199504240354.WAA20416@bonkers.taronga.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950423212915.5456A-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


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