-Jason
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Josh Richards wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Jason Hatch wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.