InterMapper-Talk Digest - Saturday, March 3, 2007
Sonicwall Probe
by "John Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Koffler, George A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Load balancer probes attached ACE and CSM
by "Quezada, Pedro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Richard E. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Jeff Kell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Quezada, Pedro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Mike Lieberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
by "Hill, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--=----------next-message-----------=
Subject: Sonicwall Probe
From: "John Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:36:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C75CCF.C479BD88"
Subject: RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
From: "Koffler, George A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:06:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd like to see the option of disabling the complaint for /31 netmasks =
as well.
Thanks,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Fontaine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
=C0 (At) 11:07 -0800 2007-03-01, ron =E9crivait (wrote)=A0:
I think turning off the capability is a bad idea. If you are going to =
ignore the RFCs, it should always be indicated so that when you leave, =
the land mines you create should be flagged.
Believe it or not, I am not ignoring the RFCs. Actually, I am applying =
RFC3021 (please have a look at it). A search for '31-bit' on the Cisco =
site also turns out some interesting documents.
There are better ways to conserve IP addresses; like using unnumbered =
serial interfaces.
Does not work well on point-to-point Ethernet interfaces. Again, see =
RFC3021 for a discussion of the pros and cons of /31 masks. There are =
even security benefits.
=C0 (At) 12:20 -0700 2007-03-01, Mike Lieberman =E9crivait (wrote)=A0:
I think most of us agree with you that it's a bad idea.
A standards track RFC must have at least some merit.
I think the question is at this time does ANYONE other than the
author of the original post desire this? If not then, well, so it goes, =
I
doubt that Dartware will do it. If there are others, then those of us =
who
don't want it will have voiced out concern that it be an optional =
switch.
Well, the purpose of asking the question on the list was to gather =
opinions. So, thanks all for responding. It seems that dropping the test =
entirely would not be acceptable for some (or many, who knows) users of =
IM.
So maybe I could ask to Dartware : could you please provide optional =
support for RFC3021 in InterMapper. Specifically, this means that one =
should be able to disable the test for the usage of the broadcast =
address on an interface when the subnet mask is /31.
Thank you again for taking the time to voice your opinion on this issue.
Best regards.
--=20
/AF
--=----------next-message-----------=
End of InterMapper-Talk Digest
____________________________________________________________________
List archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--=----------next-message-----------=--
