> Once upon a time Jake Messinger shaped the electrons to say...
> >Why is it off by default? If the netmask is not 32 bits, wouldnt you want
> >the netmask on and asserted for that port?
>
> Because before we supported VLSM the user netmasks were ignored. And a LOT
> of people have bad netmasks in RADIUS like 255.255.255.0. A LOT of people.
> So if we suddenly started supporting them by default there'd be a lot of
> routing problems.
So in other words, there was a netmask parameter but it was always
ignored, yet people would put one in and they would put in 255.255.255.0?
And this is why you added set user netmask on parameter? Okay I suppose.
> We always try to make new features default to traditional behavior.
Not always...(like timeouts) but I see your point.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Jake Messinger ph:713-772-6690 Livingston Var
AMS, Inc. fx:713-774-3498 Medical Billing
8300 Bissonnet #400 jake@ams.com Internet Services
Houston, Texas 77074 www.ams.com/~jake Business Management
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.