Re: routes and netmasks (fwd)
James McKenzie (mcs@isp.net)
Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Perhaps I'm approaching this from a different perspective, but I
> > don't see the problem? The only difference that I would see happening is
> > that a user would see a different message in the connect, e.g.
> > from (xxx.xxx.xxx.3) vs .4 to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
>
> Oh, not a big deal:
>
> set reported_address xxx.xxx.xxx.3
>
> on all the boxes and it's ok.
>
> >
> > What are the other differences?
>
> The differences are if you get remote LANs connecting to your boxes.
>
> Try to figure out how to make routing to remote C class networks
> when they can login into any of your boxes.
>
Not hard, put a static route into every box that they are allowed to
log into, and enable rip.
the only route that will get adversized will be from the box that they
are logged into.
Works well for any type of network routes that need to 'float'.
Class C, Multiple Class C, and even subnets of Class C's.
Jim McKenzie
mcs@isp.net