From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 5 06:14:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880DA16A4CE for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.packetfront.com (mailhost.packetfront.com [212.247.6.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BE843D31 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:14:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anders.lowinger@packetfront.com) Received: from [212.247.6.198] (helo=maillab.packetfront.com) by mailhost.packetfront.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BAQVZ-00070q-00; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:35:09 +0200 Received: from packetfront.com (unknown [192.168.1.194]) by maillab.packetfront.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BCA73B6C; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:44:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <40712A8F.9000704@packetfront.com> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:44:47 +0200 From: Anders Lowinger User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo References: <20040331005914.A6934@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040331005914.A6934@xorpc.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: do we support non contiguous netmasks ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:14:29 -0000 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Hi, > i was wondering if anyone knows what kind of support we have > in FreeBSD networking code, for non contiguous netmasks. > While it is trivial to support them for interface addresses, > managing them in the routing table is probably far from trivial > and I believe also mostly useless... and anyways, i have no > idea how our kernel code deals with them Not sure why you wonder? Do you need it? If we implement a mtrie for faster routing-lookups, non-contiguous masks need to go. Not even Cisco implements anything else than contiguous masks, and I have a very hard time to understand why they are needed. /Anders