On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing magical or
> difficult about masked compare. Even the bug OpenBSD just fixed -- now
> that it basically doesn't matter any more -- is hardly complex nor is
> the fix so
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:46:16PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> I have. For a significant time (years) I was running my house LAN with
> a netmask ending in (binary) 11011000, I think it was - a /29 expanded
> by adding a second /29 from higher up. (The memory is very fuzzy, but
> 255.255.255.216 lo
der Mouse wrote:
I believe that non-contiguous netmasks actually are illegal nowadays.
Cite?
RFC 4632 (CIDR Address Strategy), section 5.1:
" An implementation following these rules should also be generalized,
so that an arbitrary network number and mask are accepted for all
routing d
Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:02 42AM, der Mouse wrote:
Was [running my house LAN with a noncontiguous netmask], for
practical purposes, unsupportable? Was it something likely to cause
subtle bugs all over the networking stack? Was it something
obsoleted more or less 20 years
Date:Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
From:der Mouse
Message-ID: <201008240146.vaa08...@sparkle.rodents-montreal.org>
| I wouldn't say _nothing_. See below.
That's why I said "essentially nothing" - for your two /29's, you must have
had a max of 14 hosts. Y
There is only one reason to use non-contiguous IP masks for *ROUTING*
tables (vs for IPsec SPDs, where a there might be multiple IP subnets in
the 5-tuple):
IPv4 scarcity
Whether or not it's real scarcity or not, does not matter.
Would I spend any time fixing non-contiguous netmask bugs? No.
Date:Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:43:52 -0400
From:Michael Richardson
Message-ID: <5933.1282653...@marajade.sandelman.ca>
| There is only one reason to use non-contiguous IP masks for *ROUTING*
| tables (vs for IPsec SPDs, where a there might be multiple IP subnets in
|
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:21:37 -0400 Thor Lancelot Simon
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:15:58PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46:16 -0400 (EDT) der Mouse
> > wrote:
> > > The reason was exactly this: growing the space without
> > > renumbering when the original spac
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:25:10 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing
> > magical or difficult about masked compare. Even the bug OpenBSD
> > just fixed -- now that it basi
>>> I believe that non-contiguous netmasks actually are illegal nowadays.
>> Cite?
> RFC 4632 (CIDR Address Strategy), section 5.1:
...which is titled "Rules for Route Advertisement". (Also, 4632 is a
BCP, not a standard.)
> " An implementation following these rules should also be generalized,
On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing magical or
>> difficult about masked compare. Even the bug OpenBSD just fixed -- now
>> that it basically d
On Aug 24, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>>> That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing magical or
>>> difficult about masked compare. Ev
Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing magical or
> >> difficult about masked compare. Even the bug OpenBSD just fix
13 matches
Mail list logo
