On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Igor V. Semenyuk wrote:
> Actually, there's no need to argue about big internetworks running
> or not running RIP - after all this is a portmaster users list. Just
> imagine a stack of say 10 PM2e-30 servicing 300 phone lines. You need
> to turn on RIP on the PMs and set netmasks to 255.255.255.255 in
> order to make this to work as one unit from the customers' point of view.
>
This makes me think none of you have any experience with TCP/IP routing
.. check this out:
modems: 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.32 1.1.1.64
to to to
1.1.1.30 1.1.1.62 1.1.1.94
sub 255.255.255.224 255.255.255.224 255.255.255.224
=== === ===
PM1 PM2 PM3
=== === ===
ether: 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.1.2.3
NO RIP REQUIRED! (unless you have customers with static ips, then the
portmasters only have to broadcast, no listen!, and only the default
router for this ethernet needs to listen to rips)
in cisco's, or whatever:
ip route 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.224 1.1.2.1
ip route 1.1.1.32 255.255.255.224 1.1.2.2
ip route 1.1.1.64 255.255.255.224 1.1.2.3
this work perfectly well, closes all security problems assoc. with RIP
routing, you don't need fret about memory in the PMs, etcetc
RFC.