>> 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.)
> Bug, IMHO. Valid route, should be valid syntax. The fact you *can* shoot > yourself in the head is not the tool's problem. Your gun, your foot. We're not talking about a route here. We're talking about the subnet mask on the interface configuration. Host routes are handled just fine. I agree, allowing customers to shoot them selves in various parts of their anatomy is *not* the tool's problem. However, it does become our problem when the shot is taken, they call us and their overall user experience is less than favorable. I think having the tool unload the gun is preferable. Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM TCP/IP Development
