> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Perry J. Blalock wrote:
>
> || Now, the only problem is that the PM3 is assigning numbers within the
> || .100-.130 range AND above this range as well i.e. .131, .132,.133 etc. Is
> || this a bug? Is anyone else having this problem? I sure would like to be
> || able to contain the PM3s address assignments - never had this problem with
> || my PM2es.
>
> I've seen this behavior on our PM2's here as well. In fact, it was so
> common, i just started setting up the DNS to allow anywhere for example.
> 131, 132, 133 == pm1-31.xxx you know?
You have to reboot any time the pool-size is made smaller. I don't think
it matters if you are making it any bigger then it already is
-jr
----
Josh Richards - <jrichard@livingston.com> - <josh@lucent.com>
[Beta Engineer] - LUCENT Technologies - Remote Access Business Unit
<URL:http://www.livingston.com/> * <URL:http://www.lucent.com/dns/>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>