On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
> "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Of course, this will result in vastly decreased functionality (no
> > arbitary netmasks, no policy-based routing, code will be fine-tuned
> > for typical Internet routing tables), so this proposal definitely
> > comes at a price.
> >
> > As a general purpose operating system, where people DO in fact use
> > these features quite regularly,
>
> Even non-CIDR netmasks? AFAIK, it's hard to find dedicated networking
> devices (and routing protocols!) which support them. 8-/
Do you mean netmasks like "255.128.255.0" ? Those are a real
abomination and probably not supported.. and I don't know of anything that
would require them.
Or do you mean netmasks such as 1.1.1.1/19? I don't know of any credible
networking devices which wouldn't support them. If so, please come out of
the cave.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|