That's the problem with proprietary work arounds. There is not standard way
to do this with class-based routing - period. NO ONE can do this if they
are class based, we could just not do anything and say "no subnets" like
most companies.
>computers. Will every packet from one of those boxes bound for the
>outside subnet have to bounce off of a (Livingston) router in order to
>find its way to the pm? Major waste of bandwidth. It seems the only
No, you send them all to one PM and it will send them where they belong.
(or an IRX, any Livingston...)
>Oh - wait -- they don't make any! I would almost prefer that a subnet
>route be expanded to a bunch of host routes - almost - at least it would
>work.
That is a WORSE waste of bandwith. Would you rather every single host on
your network had reams or routes? And what about the fact that a lot of
routers *don't pick up host routes and won't forward them*.
>the pm be made to just be a bridge, and not advertise ANY route, yet still
>pick up packets bound through for the subnet and pass them through?
No, we route. We do not bridge, and there is no way to stop a route from
being added for a dialup user. And if you could, then we wouldn't know to
send anything to them.
>CIDR and OSPF have not become standard (or even available, to my
>knowledge) fare in TS's. I guess that means every time this need has
Right, but both are coming for PM/IRXs. Maybe that'll be another edge over
the competition.
>arisen in the past, you had no choice but to dedicate an interface on a
>router. This application seems obvious, SOMEONE must have implemented a
>less expensive solution. After all this time, nobody's bothered to make a
Remember dial-up routing is relatively new, useage has probably increased
a hundred fold in the past few years. Standards development tends to plod
along, and before anything is done someone has to realize there is a need.
It became apparent within the last year some time basically, and due to demand
the netmask table was added, and development towards OSPF was started.
>RIP+ standard or something that covers this HUGE shortcoming in RIP?
RIP version 2 supports subnets, written by Gary Malkin. However, I know of
only one TS company that supports it - and Gary works for them, surprise.
However, RIP-2 is basically unsupported by hosts and routers alike, because
OSPF fixes more problems. RIP-2 is still classed routing, OSPF is classless,
handles subnets, and is more efficient than RIP. So OSPF has been adopted
by most routers and will be in TS before long (I know a couple of other
TS companies are working on it too), and some hosts are/will support it.
The other problem is RIP-2 does more than just let you put the subnet
mask in the routing info, and the extra baggage isn't viewed as useful
by many people, so they are reluctant to impliment it. We could probably
do RIP-2 faster that OSPF (evolutionary compared to revolutionary) - however,
we have many, many people asking for VLSM, CIDR, and OSPF. While no one
really wants RIP-2. And OSPF is the correct solution to the problem,
especially in the long run.
-MZ
-- Livingston Enterprises Technical Support Phone: 800-458-9966 FAX: 510-426-8951 support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/> 6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566