On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Flaviof wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Flaviof wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Flaviof wrote:
>> >
>> > As a
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Flaviof wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Flaviof wrote:
> >
> > As a continuation of the topic on ICMP reply rules [ml], I could not
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Flaviof wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Flaviof wrote:
>
> As a continuation of the topic on ICMP reply rules [ml], I could not help but
> notice that in the logical flow, there is a match not
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Flaviof wrote:
> [cc: Darrel, Ben, Justin]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As a continuation of the topic on ICMP reply rules [ml], I could not help
> but notice that in the logical flow, there is a match not only for the
> logical routers's IP address but also for the L3 broadc
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Flaviof wrote:
>
>> [cc: Darrel, Ben, Justin]
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As a continuation of the topic on ICMP reply rules [ml], I could not help
>> but notice that in the logical flow, there is a match not onl
[cc: Darrel, Ben, Justin]
Hi folks,
As a continuation of the topic on ICMP reply rules [ml], I could not help
but notice that in the logical flow, there is a match not only for the
logical routers's IP address but also for the L3 broadcast (op->bcast) of
the subnet [1]. So I -- the curious cat --
