From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Nov 18 11:12:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14500 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:12:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp) Received: from DNS.Lamb.net (root@DNS.Lamb.net [207.90.181.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14495 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:12:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ulf@Gatekeeper.Alameda.net) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by DNS.Lamb.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA14858; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:12:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from gatekeeper.Alameda.net(207.90.181.2) via SMTP by DNS.Lamb.net, id smtpd014856; Tue Nov 18 11:12:10 1997 Received: (from ulf@localhost) by Gatekeeper.Alameda.net (8.8.6/8.7.6) id LAA09967; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:12:00 -0800 (PST) From: Ulf Zimmermann Message-Id: <199711181912.LAA09967@Gatekeeper.Alameda.net> Subject: Re: RIP vs. OSPF In-Reply-To: from Scot Elliott at "Nov 18, 97 02:27:58 pm" To: scot@poptart.org (Scot Elliott) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:11:59 -0800 (PST) Cc: akl@wup.de, amr@wup.de, isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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