Jeroen,
Some further replies / questions:
> > 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 o
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 int
Aaron Daubman wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> Thanks for the reply...
>
>> 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?
>
> I suppose a better question would be "why would IOS error on such a
> configuration?"
While the right q
Jeroen,
Thanks for the reply...
> 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?
I suppose a better question would be "why would IOS error on such a
configuration?"
(trying to unify configuration methodologies across pl
Greetings,
I'm curious as to why the following did not throw an overlapping
address error when committed:
[edit]
# show interfaces ge-0/0/0.0
family inet6 {
address fe80::200:ff:fe12:1/64;
address 2001:20:1::5/64;
}
[edit]
# show interfaces lo0.0
family inet6 {
address 2001:20:1::1/1
5 matches
Mail list logo
