On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Florian Weimer wrote: > "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes: > > > Of course, this will result in vastly decreased functionality (no > > arbitary netmasks, no policy-based routing, code will be fine-tuned > > for typical Internet routing tables), so this proposal definitely > > comes at a price. > > > > As a general purpose operating system, where people DO in fact use > > these features quite regularly, > > Even non-CIDR netmasks? AFAIK, it's hard to find dedicated networking > devices (and routing protocols!) which support them. 8-/ Do you mean netmasks like "255.128.255.0" ? Those are a real abomination and probably not supported.. and I don't know of anything that would require them. Or do you mean netmasks such as 1.1.1.1/19? I don't know of any credible networking devices which wouldn't support them. If so, please come out of the cave. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
