Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:51:30 -0500 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: ulf@Alameda.net, Bill Vermillion <bill@bilver.magicnet.net>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Routing problem Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980925135130.00774a48@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <19980925111651.D22112@Alameda.net> References: <3.0.3.32.19980925121618.00714074@207.227.119.2> <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net> <360938BE.3569E424@eaznet.com> <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net> <19980924150846.C24890@Alameda.net> <3.0.3.32.19980925121618.00714074@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:16 AM 9/25/98 -0700, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: >It is a valid netmask, but it wouldn't include 10.1.0.0/16 and 10.2.0.0/16 as >he wrote. Duh! Missread and for the odd numbered network. Guess this would be an example of network planning and boundaries. Planning ahead to simplify masking is something that seems to have been missed recently, if you follow all the talk about IPFW and long rulesets. Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking jeff@mountin.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.3.32.19980925135130.00774a48>