Subject: Re: routing
To: Matthias Scheler <email@example.com>
From: Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/10/1997 01:11:59
On 10 Sep 1997, Matthias Scheler wrote:
# In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970909230353.9444Bemail@example.com>,
# Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
# > If you use a normal point to point mask (/30) ...
# /30 is *not* point 2 point.
*shrug* always the way I've done it on the Ciscos.
# > ... then you're using four addresses that meet on the proper boundry.
# He has only two address, and there are *not* in a /30 block. Oskar's
# proxy arp hack might work but that is what I call bad network design.
I'm aware of that. When put back into context, that says, ``If
you use a normal point to point mask (/30) then you're using four
addresses that meet on the proper boundry.'' He made it clear that wasn't
# > Anyway, proxy-arp does seem to be the answer.
# It's a solution but a *really* *bad* one. I wonder how you can call my
# solution bad network design and consider this one fine.
Why is proxy arp worse than creating a set of tunnels to go around
Taos Mountain TS My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________