Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:39:16 -0600 From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> Cc: dennis@etinc.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask Message-ID: <199712171939.NAA09724@kai.communique.net> In-Reply-To: <19971217094157.37862@mcs.net> References: <3.0.32.19971217100825.00d45930@etinc.com> <19971217094157.37862@mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Once upon a time Dennis sent me a few raving email messages because I had configured a customer he was working with with an unnumbered interface and he wanted it the other way: numbered. I obliged. This was back in September 1995. So he knows this is entirely untrue from direct experience. And it seems his cry below contradicts what he wrote me back then. He even wrote the following because of my default configuration choice: "I've been trying to help a customer (B. Harper) and it is very difficult to help him when his provider has provided him with a defective configuration." "The only conclusion that I can reach is that you are trying to sabatoge the connection so that you can get the customer to buy a Cisco router from you. Many ISPs engage in the same practice." Dennis, You'll be happy to know that I configure numbered interfaces by default now. Nothing to do with you, we just found it easier that way over the long term. Hee hee. I even see that back on Oct 31, 1995 you wrote on -hackers praising unnumbered interfaces: "When using unnumbered interfaces, all of the interfaces have a "local" address of 192.1.1.1. This is nice because all transactions from the host have the same source address, and you also save addresses by not having to use one for each logical or physical connection." This only a month after you flamed me for configuring a customer unnumbered. Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> On 17 December 1997 at 9:41, Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 1997 at 10:08:26AM -0500, dennis wrote: > > At 11:34 AM 12/17/97 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > > Your ISP, unfortunately, most likely uses Ciscos, which CANNOT route to > > hosts. Ciscos can only route to nets, so you must set the PTP interface > > to a subnet mask. This is a waste of a net and arguably wrong (since there > > is, in fact, no network), but we live in a world of ciscoheads. With unix > > you only need use 2 addresses per PTP interface..with ciscos you need to > > use an entire subnet. > > > > Dennis > > Balderdash. > > CISCOs can run un-numbered interfaces (the proper way to do a PTP link where > the terminal end is not a network) and further, can in fact handle and > advertise host routes. > > -- > -- > Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin > http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS > Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712171939.NAA09724>