Hello, But the Ip configuration syntax in hostname.if is the same. (appart from a /31 having a sequential ip address pair that starts on an even numbered ip) while a point to point / ip unumbered setup would have any arbitary pair of ips on the interface. Is there anything specifically wrong in the proposed patch ? thanks for the update on ip unumbered (i didnt know about that term for point to point addressing) Tom Smyth
On 1 October 2017 at 23:42, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2017/10/01 19:18, Tom Smyth wrote: >> so the point to point addressing scheme is for saving ips sometimes >> it can be referred to incorrectly in my opinion as /31 addressing > > It's totally different to /31. > >> (well it is more like 2x /32 addresses) but it can be a > > What you're suggesting is more commonly known as "ip unnumbered", the gateway > uses an address shared between multiple downstreams. It was originally common > for PPP links but low-budget VPS providers started doing this on ethernet too. > >> it is described on the following rfc >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021 > > No, that describes standard /31 use. > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 The information contained in this E-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the named recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering it to the recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at the number above and erase the message You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment.
