Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:00:27 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.nodak.edu>, multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Seeking advice on mrouted configuration.. Message-ID: <3508.825541227@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:40:58 %2B0200." <199602282040.WAA10252@silver.sms.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> More elegant way would of course to fix your ip-addressing :-) It shouldn't > hurt too much to dedicate a subnet of /30 to your sl0-pair. Gack. Arguably I shouldn't have to, no? Now I agree that sharing the same ipaddr for both ed0 and sl0 interfaces on freefall was evil, so I changed that. freefall now uses 192.216.222.4 (freefall) for ed0 and 192.216.222.2 (jkh-sl) for sl0. I also did the same thing on whisker, ed0 is 192.216.222.228 (whisker) and sl0 is 192.216.222.224 (jkh-Net). Yes, both pairs are in the same subnets, but that should be OK from a unicast point of view so why mandate special twisty semantics for multicast when you don't have to? Is it really so hard to make mrouted respect this scenario? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3508.825541227>