Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:11:59 -0800 (PST) From: Ulf Zimmermann <ulf@Alameda.net> To: scot@poptart.org (Scot Elliott) Cc: akl@wup.de, amr@wup.de, isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RIP vs. OSPF Message-ID: <199711181912.LAA09967@Gatekeeper.Alameda.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971118142451.2837C-100000@homer.duff-beer.com> from Scot Elliott at "Nov 18, 97 02:27:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thei only thing I'd say about RIP is that it doesn't support subnetting. > This can be a problem.. for example, I used to use the class-A network > 10.0.0.0 as out intranet. But the routers using RIP could only broadcast > routes to the 10.0.0.0 network - not to any of the subnets - so you end up > having lots of static routes as a cludge and only one router out of each > subnet. Not nice. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Scot Elliott scot@poptart.org Tel: +44 (0)181 8961019 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Public key available by finger at: finger scot@poptart.org > or at: http://www.poptart.org/pgpkey.html Sorry, this is not true. RipV1 does not support netmasks in the degree that does not transport a mask within the packets, but there are tricks to get around that (subnet mask known via connected) and RipV2 supports subnet masks in the packets. If you want to know more about the RipV1 and netmask, ask me, even it is a topic I don't like ;-| Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711181912.LAA09967>