Hmm,
Try removing your static 0.0.0.0 and you'll see why.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ip classless and default route [7:53231]
according to many books, ip clas
It will work fine for any destination other then
210.210.210.x/24 which is the classful network for
your IP subnet.
A better real-world internet example with no ip
classless and internet connections would be, if you
had a 64.x.x.x subnet on the serial and similar on LAN
side. In this case
You don't need the "ip classless" command because your default route points
to an unnumbered serial interface. If instead it pointed to an IP address
that was in the same class as your local Ethernet, then you would have a
problem. Here's the classic example:
e0 RouterA
according to many books, ip classless should be used to be able to use
default route.
but I just found my internet router, actually has no ip classless.
which means I am using classful route lookup.
And this is working fine,who can explain why
note that ip address here is not real one
days, ISPs have possession of various address blocks which they divvy
up as needed to their customers. So its absolutely common for the various
subnets of a particular classful address block to be split up amongst
multiple organizations.
So the ip classless command was used to get around this defaul
Brilliant!
Pierre-Alex
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Bernard Omrani
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 7:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IP classless command [7:30056]
For a simple explanation if IP classless, see:
http
For a simple explanation if IP classless, see:
http://www.networkking.net/out/ipclassless.htm
Bernard
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 12:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IP class
Hunt,
With "no ip classless" configured, the router assumes classful behavior. If
it has any route at all to a network it assumes that it has routing to all
of that major network (this is why RIP has such problems with discontiginous
networks). If it receives a packet destined f
Hello Mike. thanks so much for your detailed explanation. However, I'm
still confused about how the ip classless works. I understand that
"classful" rules (if no ip classless is configured), with the 10.1.1.0/24
static route, it would forward anything from 10.1.1.1 to 10.1.1.254
IP CLASSLESS is a little hard to understand. Even Cisco is very vague on
this. Once a
TAC engineer just told me that the command just makes routing better. Here
is what I
believe happens.
If you don't have the "IP CLASSLESS" command defined in a Cisco router then
the router
w
12/24/2001 5:35pm Monday
Well said
- Original Message -
From: ""Mike""
Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: IP classless command [7:30056]
> The best way to explain IP classless is to explain how a router works
The best way to explain IP classless is to explain how a router works with
"no ip classless". Suppose you have a router with a static route configured
to 10.1.1.0/24 out some interface and you also have a default gateway
configured. Again, ip classless is disabled, "no ip classl
Can anyone please explain to me what is "ip classless" used for? I looked
it up on the Caslow book, and it states that by enabling IP classless, it
allows one to override the contiguous subnet rule and allow the router to
look for the longest match beyond the listed subnets.
But I s
Search the archives for 2-3 iterations of the discussion culminating with
Chuck doing some heavy lab work.
Peter
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/4/2001 at 5:15 PM Doug Lockwood wrote:
>Tom;
>
>I think a discussion on this will be interesting.
>My perseption is that a classful/cl
Tom;
I think a discussion on this will be interesting.
My perseption is that a classful/classless router
has nothing to do with VLSM or CIDR.
The only issue is how it handles the default route
on networks that are attached to the router with at least one interface.
Classless - attached net, sub
Cisco routers by default are still classfull, even though the internet has
long since gone classless.
For a router to effective understand CIDR routes that don't fall on
classfull boundrys it is necessary to turn off the default by executing the
command ip classless
If for some reason you
If you were running RIP V1 on your network,
correct design would dictate that all the local networks "must"
appear in the routing table of your routers.
If one of your users accesses a network not in the table,
the router would send an icmp "network unreachable" with no IP c
In what situation would you use the command "no ip classless"?
Cisco's site says
ip classless --- This command allows the software to forward packets that are
destined for unrecognized subnets of directly connected networks. The packets
are forwarded to the best supernet route.
This has been covered in depth a few different times. Check the
archives and you'll find a few different threads that cover the
operation of 'ip classless' and 'no ip classless'.
If you don't know what they do, use 'ip classless' and forget about it.
Hi,
Please tell me what is the use of "ip classless" command in classful
networks?
I have read somewhere that When using classful routing protocols such as RIP
or IGRP, use "ip classless" command if you want it to also match unknown
subnets of known networks. Can anybody
...
> I have received results from a TAC case about this familiar issue.
For
> those coming late to the picnic, the issue was that the presence of
OSPF
> or IS-IS overrides 'no ip classless' in the router configuration and
> would force the router to behave classlessly. The TAC e
TECTED]...
> > I have received results from a TAC case about this familiar issue.
> For
> > those coming late to the picnic, the issue was that the presence of
> OSPF
> > or IS-IS overrides 'no ip classless' in the router configuration and
> > would force the
ot;>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have received results from a TAC case about this familiar issue. For
> those coming late to the picnic, the issue was that the presence of OSPF
> or IS-IS overrides 'no ip classless' in the router configuration and
> would force the router to beha
I have received results from a TAC case about this familiar issue. For
those coming late to the picnic, the issue was that the presence of OSPF
or IS-IS overrides 'no ip classless' in the router configuration and
would force the router to behave classlessly. The TAC engineer
consulted
nk.
Note that this will "work" for all addresses within all, even unknown,
subnets of 10.0.0.0/8, even with
no ip classless
set.
However, neither
no ip classless
ip route 8.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 10.10.32.0
nor
no ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.32.0 !(the "c
At 12:21 AM 4/9/01, EA Louie wrote:
>no ip classless means route IP over classful boundaries - you'll have to do
>your homework to learn the Class A, Class B, and Class C network prefixes
>though, mate ;-) However, 10.0.0.0 is a private (RFC 1918),
>non-Internet-routeabl
no ip classless means route IP over classful boundaries - you'll have to do
your homework to learn the Class A, Class B, and Class C network prefixes
though, mate ;-) However, 10.0.0.0 is a private (RFC 1918),
non-Internet-routeable Class A network
the route statement means that the rou
no ip classless
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.32.0
Whats this mean
Thanks
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't get it.
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Finale: OSPF and IP Classless (partial retraction)
>
> Nope, 'cause blonde (with the &#
at it doesn't understand and say 'I don't get it. Go away.'.
Thus...blonde ACLs.
- Original Message -
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: The Finale: OSPF and IP Cla
Nope, 'cause blonde (with the 'e') refers for female routing engineers. Or,
rather, females in general. But be wary even using to refer to females..
"Usage Note: It is usual in English to treat blond as if it required gender
marking, as in French, spelling it blonde when referring to women and
>I'm blonde. I don't get it.
Does that mean that the reason that (male) blonde routing engineers
get better as they age, not from experience but from male pattern
baldness?
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
I'm blonde. I don't get it.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: The Finale: OSPF and IP Classless (partia
Since the solution points to adding "ip classless", my question would be:
When would someone use/need to have "no ip classless". Does anyone use "no
ip classless" as a standard in their configurations? And if so, what is
gained?
Christopher A. Kane, CCNP
Senior N
ield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429 Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=
-Original Message-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The Finale: OSPF and IP Clas
that particular
point.
The moral of the story is: always use 'ip classless' and then quit
worrying about it.
>From here onward I will no longer refer to 'ip classless'.it is now
'ip clueless'. :-)
>>> "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually, John my treatises :) on this subject a year ago showed this.
ip classless
*only* affects the lookups *outside* the classful aggregate. Any
supernet *within* the classful aggregate *will* be used, even with
no ip classless
set.
Thus, a learned route, 10.1.0.0/16 , will be used
In my testing, I found exactly the opposite, which is why all of this is
so odd. With 'no ip classless' configured and using EIGRP to originate
a default from Router A into Router B, B would still behave classfully
in its route lookups. It would *not* use a supernet route for
desti
? So, just as in my experiments, the router
behaves classlessly up to a point. In this example, it would use the
major network supernet route but still would not be able to use the
0.0.0.0/0 supernet, right?
Good grief. I'm just going to leave 'ip classless' on all the time and
Hi John,
I would like to add another point to your observation. With 'no ip
classless' , EIGRP also behaves the same way as OSPF when you have a
supernet for the specific major net.
> Now for the really interesting part (if you've read this far and are still
> awake!) I s
A is originating a default into B. Router B has 'no ip
classless' configured. This means that by Cisco's explanations, if I were
to ping any unknown subnet of 10.0.0.0/8 it would fail and debugging would
show that it was unroutable. However, that wasn't happening. If I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: UPDATE: OSPF overriding 'no ip classless'
Well, there are two different issues
2001 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: UPDATE: OSPF overriding 'no ip classless'
Well, there are two different issues. You're talking about the way the
routing protocols themselves behave: whether they pass subnet mask
information or not. The
Well, there are two different issues. You're talking about the way the
routing protocols themselves behave: whether they pass subnet mask
information or not. The issue here is routing table lookups, not how
those routes are installed.
With 'no ip classless' configured, eve
12:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UPDATE: OSPF overriding 'no ip classless'
Okay, here are my latest findings. Bob and others wanted me to try
various
supernet routes to see how the routers reacted. Well, I did, and the
router
with 'no ip classless' is definitely b
Okay, here are my latest findings. Bob and others wanted me to try various
supernet routes to see how the routers reacted. Well, I did, and the router
with 'no ip classless' is definitely behaving classlessly when OSPF is
running.
First, a recap. I have router A connected to route
I think you're right!
All DRAM and no flashor is that the other way around?
Maybe I'm all DRAM and no NVRAM, that's more like it.
> >Now that I think about it, I believe I did try 10.0.0.0/8 and it still
> >behaved classfully, even running OSPF. I'll try it again to make sure,
> >tho
>Now that I think about it, I believe I did try 10.0.0.0/8 and it still
>behaved classfully, even running OSPF. I'll try it again to make sure,
>though. I'm only 30 and my memory is already failing me.
>
>John
I'll bet your memory isn't from a Cisco-approved supplier. See what happens?
>
>>
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OSPF overrides "no ip classless"
Now that I think about it, I believe I did try 10.0.0.0/8 and it still
behaved classfully, even running OSPF. I'll try it again to make sure,
though. I'm only 30 and my memory is already failing me.
OTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSPF overrides "no ip classless"
If you recall our recent thread on this, I was noticing that when ospf
would
advertise a default route to another router, t
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSPF overrides "no ip classless"
If you recall our recent thread on this, I was noticing that when ospf
would
advertise a default route to another router, the receiving rou
would have an effect here, but who knows...
John
> Just want to see the result by using different type of area.
>
> By using ospf routing protocol with no ip classless, the route distribute
> from the other
> router behave ip classless.
>
> PS. Did you read the other
Just want to see the result by using different type of area.
By using ospf routing protocol with no ip classless, the route distribute
from the other
router behave ip classless.
PS. Did you read the other thread
""Katson PN Yeung"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
9
"ip classless" or "no ip classless" only affect the way the router lookup
the ip route table. It does not related to how you define the ospf area or
how you redistribute the route (inc the default route).
""wind"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in mes
hat my understanding of 'no ip classless' is
> correct!
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/21.html
>
> So, referring to my other threads, why is OSPF overriding classfull
routing
> table lookups? I'd rather not retype the whole thing, so if you'd like
the
Here is a link verifying that my understanding of 'no ip classless' is
correct!
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/21.html
So, referring to my other threads, why is OSPF overriding classfull routing
table lookups? I'd rather not retype the whole thing, so if you'd li
If you recall our recent thread on this, I was noticing that when ospf would
advertise a default route to another router, the receiving router would
start to behave classlessly even if 'no ip classless' was in the
configuration. This behavior was not seen with eigrp, rip v1, rip v2
That would be a good test, actually. I think your summarization of the "feature" is
right on. It's almost as if the router thinks "Well, we're running OSPF so *surely*
he must not *really* want 'no ip classless' turned on. So I'll go ahead an
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 1:32 PM
To: Vincent
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP Classless Revisited (More info)
Metric shouldn't have anything to do with it. Whether I'm using RIP or
OSPF
Heh heh...yes, ip classless and bgp synchronization do fit into that
category quite well!
I am starting to think this is an IOS feature on this router. I tried this
with RIP, EIGRP, and OSPF. 'no ip classless' behaved exactly as expected
when running RIP and EIGRP. It was only w
Not that its at all helpful in this situation, but ip classless, much like bgp
synchronization, fall into the category of commands that simply defy understanding
when presented with test criteria. One must keep in mind that these are
implementations of code that sometimes are not 100
ll be
defined.
Phil
- Original Message -
From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "YY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: IP Classless Revisited (this is just odd...)
> Sure, I&#
I'm not sure how that helps in this case. In both scenarios, whether using
RIP or OSPF, the default route is being learned dynamically by the hub
router and it is installed into the routing table. The problem is that with
no ip classless configured, that router should never use the de
Metric shouldn't have anything to do with it. Whether I'm using RIP or OSPF
the default route is being added to the routing table of the hub router.
The issue is that with no ip classless configured, the hub router should NOT
ever pick the default route when trying to reach unknown
I guess in faovour of metric.
"John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Okay, I just tried this with RIP advertising the default route and I'm
even
> more confused! Now, it behaves as I would expect. With
Okay, I just tried this with RIP advertising the default route and I'm even
more confused! Now, it behaves as I would expect. With no ip classless,
pings to unknown 10.x.x.x subnets are unroutable even though there is a
default route in the routing table.
With no ip classless, why do
Sure, I'll try that but I don't see why it should matter. As I understand
it, ip classless affects routing table lookups only and it doesn't care how
those routes were installed into the table.
Although, given this behavior, my assumption might be wrong.
Thanks,
John
> Jo
PROTECTED]
Subject: IP Classless Revisited (this is just odd...)
Ok, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water Or should
I say, just when I thought I understood the behavior of 'ip classess' and
'no ip classless' Let me summarize my lab setup.
RouterA-
Ok, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water Or should
I say, just when I thought I understood the behavior of 'ip classess' and
'no ip classless' Let me summarize my lab setup.
RouterA-RouterB--RouterC
Pretty simple. AtoB is 10.1.1.0/24,
ation 10.1.1.1 (for
example) it will match
one of the above rule 10.1.0.0.
now when another packet reach this router and ask for 10.4.0.1 (for example)
now, since there
is no rules under the 10.0.0.0 network, it will drop even there is a static
route.
This is the no IP classless
for the ip classless, the p
By default, when performing a look-up in the route table a router will
first try to match the major network then the subnet--if there's no
match and no default network route, the packet's dropped. Again this is
the default behavior.
With ip classless, you enable the router to f
IP Classless is used for route summarization and for further subnetting a
subnet for point-to-point WAN links using VLSM.It is important because by
using ip classless u can perform route summarization thereby saving on
bandwidth utilization,router processing and reduce the size of routing
With "no ip classless" the router looks for an exact match for a route. If
not found the packet is dropped. So if the packet destination is 172.16.33.1
and 172.16.33.0 /24 is not in the table then it goes into the bit bucket.
With "ip classless" if an exact match is not found
Hi,
Can someone pls. give me a simple explanation of the IP Classless command
and why/when it is necessary.
Thanks
Rashid
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
Akiddeledivydo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Cthulu, CCIE Candidate
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:IP Classless (from Q&A Forum at Cisco)
I got this off teh Q&A fo
I got this off teh Q&A forum, and thought the group would enjoy reading
it...
Question: What is the function of command ip classless in such a network
OSPF is used as the routing protocol. Would it be possible to explain it by
giving an example?
Answer:
The ip classless command makes
able.
>
>Jason
>
Without the IP classless command a router sees routes as classful
So lets say you on your router you have a serial interface with the address
10.0.0.1 /30
and an ethernet with the address 220.110.60.1
and a default route pointing out the serial interface
Without the ip classles
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hubert Pun
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 4:55 AM
To: Cisco Study Group
Subject: ip classless
What does this command do?
thanks in advance
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
(as
defined by its class) and then looks for the right subnet within that
network, apparently (according to the answer I'm getting) if it doesn't
find the subnet within the net, it drops the packet.
That said, the commands "ip classless" and "no ip classless" are us
What does this command do?
thanks in advance
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subs
Let me explain the difference. The best description of
it I've seen documented is in the networkers 2000 or
1999 Intro to routing presentation I believe. I can't
locate it at the moment.
Anyway, the 'ip classless' and 'no ip classless'
global IP options modify the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Gravlin
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 9:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: ip classless ?
The ip classless command is used when setting up default routes. Cisco
routers
yes
"Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
859B90209E2FD311BE5600902751445D2E7CF4@LYNX">news:859B90209E2FD311BE5600902751445D2E7CF4@LYNX...
> hi ,
>
> Anyone knows why when we use RIP or IGRP routing protocols and we have a
> default network com
The ip classless command is used when setting up default routes. Cisco
routers (classful by default) expect a subnet mask when entering your static
ip route commands, so when you are setting up a default route, you must
specify ip classless, since no remote subnets will be in its routing table
ng to
think at that time of the morning.
Hope you get some ZZZ's tonight!
- Original Message -
From: Casey Fahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: ip classless ?
> Wrong? Me? Golly, I had trouble
Guy's,
"When classless routing is in effect, if a router
receives packets destined for a subnet of a network that has no network default
route, the router forwards the packet to the best supernet route."
Fenris
understanding as to WHY, and how it might impact our network design
decisions. (Like, don't use RIP or IGRP...? :) )
Just for grins, the definition I prefer, from Jeff Doyle's book, pp765 "IP
Classless : Enables classless route lookups so that the router can forward
packets to unk
Puffers Buddy,
Actually you are correct about configuring a default route, BUT you won't
be able to use that default static route if you don't enable your router
with IP classless (enabled by default in 11.2 and up). IP classless allows
a router to use the best "sup
Casey is right. I've setup quite a few Internet connections where no
routing protocols are used and in order to route correctly when using a
supernetted class A or other, you must use ip classless or you ain't goin'
nowhere.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: whatshakin
Hmmm, let's see where to start
1: EIGRP uses classless routing by default unlike IGRP.
2: Default routes refer to static routes--not dynamic routes used in RIP,
EIGRP, IGRP, etc.
3: The command "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 w.x.y.z" enables a default
route--not "ip cl
This is wrong amigo.
The 'ip classless' command is used when configuring default routes. It is
used because when you create a default route on a router it gets advertised
as 0.0.0.0 in addition to the default network. When a router recieves the
advertised default route it will forwa
RIP and IGRP are Classful routing protocols. Meaning that they will
recognize and IP by the first octet and automatically use the default mask
associated with that class. They will disregard any subnets. Therefore you
have the ip classless command which tells these protocols to forget about
the
Turns out that ip classless is enabled by default. Perhaps that is why you
need to use "no ip classless" See the www.cisco.com for details.
Ip Classless - 11.3 The default behavior changed from disabled to enabled
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Ah yes, classful addressing. Blast from the past...
I am assuming you are aware of the classes of IP addresses, and how a
class A address has a first octet of 1-127, etc..
Well, what IP Classless means is that the router *does not* assume that an
IP address with a first octet of 1-126 is a
hi ,
Anyone knows why when we use RIP or IGRP routing protocols and we have a
default network command entered , we need to include ip classless?
Any form of input will be greatly appreciated
thanks
Jason
___
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http
Wrong.
ip classless allows a router receiving a packet it doesn't know how to forward
(unrecognized subnet and no default route in the routing table) to choose the
best supernet to forward it finally. Otherwise with no ip classless, the packet
is discarded.
cvp
ccnp, ccda
"
hi guys,
ip classless is for routing protocols to advertise subnets whereas no ip
classless is for routing protocols not to advertise subnet info Am I right
in saying that?
thanks
Jason
___
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
-
From: Donald B Johnson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Page
Subject: IP classless/Default routes
Dave
Let me clear this up a little, you can place more than one default route in
the routing table but the router will only use the first
ent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IP classless/Default routes
Dave,
If you have a CCO login check this page out. It explains the differences
between Default Gateway, Gateway of last resort, and default network. If
you don't have
-
From: Donald B Johnson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Page
Subject: IP classless/Default routes
Dave
Let me clear this up a little, you can place more than one default route in
the routing table but the router will only use the first
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
