[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?
How are the semantics when you have (partial) overlaps? With CIDR prefixes,
"most specific wins", but what is "most specific" when matching two
possibly matching routes with a 255.0.255.0 and 255.0.0.255 mask? This
is one of the problems I see.
The second drawback I can see is "data structures" - if you know netmasks
are contiguous, you can build more efficient route lookup structures for
that special case.
On the commercial side, Cisco stopped supporting non-continguous netmasks
about 10 years ago, mostly because they rewrote the FIB code (CEF) and the
new stuff was not written to handle it...
(I'm not a NetBSD kernel developer, I just read this list because there's
lots to learn - but my professional work is "routing in the Internet", so
these questions do show up occasionally)
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
Main Index |
Thread Index |