tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: ifconfig v2


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:08:12AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >> Why?  What harm are [noncontiguous netmasks] doing that outweighs
> >> (to you) breaking an occasionally useful (if little-used) facility
> >> that's been there pretty much since day one?
> > No one can agree what they are supposed to mean.
> Hm?  I thought they meant what contiguous netmasks do:
> "on-net" = "dst address & mask == local address & mask" (mutatis
> mutandis for "local address" for things like routes).  Who thinks they
> mean anything else?


the interesting case is, what happens when you have two interfaces with 
addresses/netmasks   (0xffff00ff)  (0xffff0ff0)

and you send a packet to ?

What about   (0xffff08ff)  (0xffff0ff1)    ?

(Yes, I must admit that I've seen one use of them where only one
interface was involved, and the situation on the router wasn't


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index