On Monday, 01/22/2007 at 07:59 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And I assume the reason why Linux shows me a netmask of > > 255.255.255.255 for P2P connections is there is some code, > > No, there's only one host on the other end of the link, so you don't > actually have a subnet on a P2P link.
In this I would agree, except to say "watch out" if you get into OSPF/RIP, because (according to our z/OS brethren) the OSPF protocol doesn't recognize non-subnetted networks and subnets are required (RFC 3021's 31-bit masks notwithstanding, I guess). It can be done, but you have to assign a subnet to contain all your dynamically routed p2p hosts. In this way, the host routes generated (you have to configure it to do that) will override the subnet route. But if something goes wrong, it goes WAY wrong. :-( This is why the OSPF configuration in z/VM 5.2 no longer allows a mask of 255.255.255.255. I'm not saying z/OS is necessarily correct, I'm just pointing it out to avoid further confusion. (Yeah, right. Sure.) Static routing is not affected as long it deals with hosts that are outside the scope of your dynamic routing protocols. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
