Aaron Daubman wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm curious as to why the following did not throw an overlapping > address error when committed:
Why should it? It is just a more specific route. According to what you say you would not be able to route a /48 to one direction and a piece of it to another interface... One tend to do things like: ::/0 $upstream 2001:db8::/32 $downstream Which is also 'overlapping', but why would it error or even warn about that? it is what what you want it to do isn't it? Notez bien: 2001:db8::/32 is a documentation prefix, use it where possible. Also note that even though /64's are generally to be used for interfaces, you can use whatever size you want effectively. Only a /127 is not too smart to be used due to the anycast subnet address which is always the lowest address thus making /127 unusable, it works in some cases but in many it won't depending on OS's involved. 2x /128 back and forth works of course ;) Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
