>
> I just wanted to verify something that I was reading in the archives. For
> the purposes of route table reduction, is it OK to set pool 32 on a
> portmaster if your address pool begins on a boundary of a /27 subnet (and
> it is neither the first or the last subnet) in order to get it to pass one
> /27 route for each portmaster instead of host routes or combinations of
> routes, ie:
>
> a.b.c.32 /27
>
> instead of:
> (assuming a set assigned 31)
> a.b.c.31/32
> a.b.c.32/28
> a.b.c.48/29
> a.b.c.56/30
> a.b.c.60/32
>
> Even though the PM has only 30 ports, it should just cycle through the 32
> addresses safely, right?
There isn't a problem if the pool is larger then the actual number of
ports so I don't see a problem with this. It also doesn't matter whether
you use the first or last subnet either.
----
Josh Richards - <jrichard@livingston.com>
Beta Engineer
Lucent Technologies (Remote Access Business Unit)
(previously Livingston Enterprises, Inc.)
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.