I think support for /31 masks was introduced in 12.2.8 though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken;)
Dave s vermill wrote: > MADMAN wrote: > >>Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some >>reason(s) not >>to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and >>if you >>running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;) > > > Dave, > > I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support for > serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a > router with shiny new IOS. > > Scott > > >> Dave >> >>Deepak N wrote: >> >>>Hi Vermill >>> Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered >> >>interface, the router >> >>>tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in >> >>my case it is >> >>>behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of >> >>finding the >> >>>next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it >> >>was not able to >> >>>reach the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes >> >>were installed >> >>>based on the outgoing interface. >>> >>>Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. >>> >>>Thanks n regards >>>Deepak >> >>-- >>David Madland >>CCIE# 2016 >>Sr. Network Engineer >>Qwest Communications >>612-664-3367 >> >>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." >>--Winston >>Churchill -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62250&t=62134 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
