On Mon, 5 May 1997, Marc D. Jackson wrote:
> Eric Deschamps writes:
> >
> > >
> > > > > 2] How will VLSM make firewalling administration any easier/better ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, but it will make it easier to subnet your intranet without
> > > > loosing precious IP addresses to a subnet without enough
> > > > hosts to use all of the addresses.
> > >
> > > ? I don't understand this last sentence. My exposure to VLSM indicates
> > > that it has nothing to do with subnetting your intranet. I ran into
> > > this problem when trying to route with rip. Specifically, Sun's
> > > implementation of the routing socket interface is not the industry
> > > standard. In other words, when you use a Sun machine as a multi-homed
> > > host with subnetted networks the rip updates are incorrect. The routers
> > > that we used had no problems at all in dealing with the subnetted
> > > networks, therefore while we were able to subnet our intranet we had
> > > problems with using Sun's as any type of router.
> > >
> > > mj
> >
> > Marc,
> >
> > It seems that VLSM stands for "variable-length subnet mask", so it looks like
> > it has to do with subnetting your intranet. RIP has no knowledge of subnet
>
> Perhaps this is a problem with terminology. On one machine if I have
>
> 192.168.100.33. 192.168.100.66, 192.168.100.97 all with the subnet mask
> 255.255.255.224 the rip updates from the machine contain information
> about the various subnets. This would indicate to me that "RIP" *does*
> understand subnetting. Are you saying that the packets on port 520 are
> *not* RIP updates?
>
> mj
>
RIP does understand "traditional" subnet masks(classfull), but not VLSM.
mlu
References:
|
|
