Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:31:40 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@korin.warman.org.pl> Cc: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>, dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971217113013.6924A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.971217194100.130B-100000@korin.warman.org.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> And even if you don't want to run unnumbered interface, you waste only 4
> addresses (x.x.x.x/255.255.255.252), and even these can be private (e.g.
> 10.x.x.x)... So I don't see that much waste here.
Except that using private network numbers on p2p links has a number of
bad affects, basically all certering around the fact that the router will
use the private number as a source IP.
> Andrzej Bialecki
>
> ---------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
> abial@warman.org.pl | if(halt_per_mth > 0) { fetch("http://www.freebsd.org") }
> Research & Academic | "Be open-minded, but don't let your brains to fall out."
> Network in Poland | All of the above (and more) is just my personal opinion.
> ---------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971217113013.6924A-100000>