|
|
In article <d617g2$pl6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Unruh wrote:
>ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin) writes:
>>Bottom line - you can use a non-contiguous mask on your network if you
>>please (though it won't be easy to configure),
>>Your network, your configuration, your problems.
>Well, it also depends on how the routing software has been written on your
>machine. If it was written expecting contiguous addresses, then despite
>what the rfc says, you will probably have problems.
I don't know of any O/S at the moment that will tolerate a non-contiguous mask
>If I had a dollar for eery program which violated the rfcs I think I would
>be rich.
Nah, only Bill Gates gets to milk that cow, and mainly because microsoft
goes out of their way to avoid following standards - even their own. Remember
the compatibility of MS-CHAP-v1 (chap-80 loosely described in RFC2433) verses
MS-CHAP-v2 (chap-81 even more loosely described in RFC2759)?
Old guy
|
|