Subject: RE: (usr-tc) Techie routing discussion :)

From: Colin Wantling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:22:44 +0000

Jeff,

Let's agree to differ. The HiperArc is on my side. Not often I agree with
3COM, will try not to make a habit of it!

Regards,

Colin

	Also sprach Colin Wantling
	>We need Mike to confirm what the mask is on the HARC interface. 

	Again, what the mask is on the Arc interface doesn't...well,
shouldn't
	anyway...matter.  

	Trying to set up a static route, 10.1.1.9/32 with a next-hop of
	10.1.1.12, should pretty much *never* give an error like that.  Now,
	depending upon several other factors, it may not actually install
the
	route into the active routing table, but the system should not give
the
	error that it did.  In classless routing, there is no problem
entering a
	route such as that above, even if a less specific route that
encompasses
	that route is locally connected, the most specific route is chosen,
	period.  Whether the route is locally connected or static, or OSPF
or
	RIP, or whatever, is not relevant at this point.

	>His attached network may well be mask /29 /28 ... etc. 

	So?  Why should that cause any problem?

	>This would give the error message he gets as it would then include
the
	>address of the HARC itself. Not a question of Classful/Classless,
more
	>a question of inconsistency and getting caught.

	But there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about it.  10.1.1.9/32
->
	10.1.1.12 is perfectly consistent assuming 10.1.1.12 is reachable
(which
	the earlier discussion indicated it was), even if its not reachable,
it
	shouldn't generate an error like that, possibly a different error,
but
	certainly not the one that is given.  Given classless routing, there
is
	no problem with entering the route that Mike specified.

	Again...this is purely an issue of 3Com not allowing perfectly
legal,
	though less common configurations.  3Com has decided to protect us
from
	ourselves.

	The route table setup that Mike would wish to see (and is perfectly
	legal) would look something like:

	Network   /Mask    Next-hop            protocol
	10.1.1.0  /24      10.1.1.8(eth:0)     local (directly connected)
	10.1.1.9  /32      10.1.1.12           static

	(went back and looked in previous messages...the Arc is 10.1.1.8 on
a /24
	netmask)
	-- 
	Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
	Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
	IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

	-
	 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
	 with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.
	 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages
send
	 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

-
 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
 with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:27:14 +0000

>Let's agree to differ. The HiperArc is on my side. Not often I agree
>with 3COM, will try not to make a habit of it!

Yup, and the HiPerArc is wrong too...thus my original posting.  :)
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-