Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:04:11 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing an alias can remove routes ? Message-ID: <8c73e93c-9da3-37a6-9e3a-27d2723c1ff6@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <CAMXt9Na1z-%2B6TunrLD81haUEjhK3ZGeWQOtSTDRV46w3%2BZH25A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMXt9NZ=rMOToi8nSU8YQjb0WAXbbuMamdS6Uy82v4j9YoPkMw@mail.gmail.com> <1a2f60f2-6f78-00d6-9287-eaf3408205fa@grosbein.net> <CAMXt9Na1z-%2B6TunrLD81haUEjhK3ZGeWQOtSTDRV46w3%2BZH25A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
15.01.2019 1:15, Mark Saad wrote: > That's what I was originally attempting to do . What I am now > wondering is; Should I follow the convention of the all alias ip in > the subnet > of the primary (non-alias) address should be /32 . Then the first > occurrence of a new subnet as an alias should have its real mask > and then all subsequent aliases of the new subnet be /32 or should all > aliases just be /32 ? Right.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8c73e93c-9da3-37a6-9e3a-27d2723c1ff6>