Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:00:27 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.nodak.edu>, multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Seeking advice on mrouted configuration.. Message-ID: <3508.825541227@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:40:58 %2B0200." <199602282040.WAA10252@silver.sms.fi>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> More elegant way would of course to fix your ip-addressing :-) It shouldn't > hurt too much to dedicate a subnet of /30 to your sl0-pair. Gack. Arguably I shouldn't have to, no? Now I agree that sharing the same ipaddr for both ed0 and sl0 interfaces on freefall was evil, so I changed that. freefall now uses 192.216.222.4 (freefall) for ed0 and 192.216.222.2 (jkh-sl) for sl0. I also did the same thing on whisker, ed0 is 192.216.222.228 (whisker) and sl0 is 192.216.222.224 (jkh-Net). Yes, both pairs are in the same subnets, but that should be OK from a unicast point of view so why mandate special twisty semantics for multicast when you don't have to? Is it really so hard to make mrouted respect this scenario? Jordanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3508.825541227>