Re: OSPF and Assigned Address Pool
Jeffrey J. Mountin (sysop@mixcom.com)
Wed, 14 May 1997 17:07:53 -0500
At 04:53 AM 5/13/97 -0400, Stephen Zedalis wrote:
>On Mon, 12 May 1997, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
>
>>for PM2-30s - Start the first at .2 and the rest on the boundaries (.32 .64
>>etc) and 'set pool-size 32'
>
>Excuse me, if you do this you will have 2 portmasters with overlapping IP
>assignments and you will NOT have the minimum number of routes. If you
>want even /27 assignments, you have to start the first at .0, otherwise
>the first portmaster will have addresses .2 - .33 which will overlap with
>the second portmaster. (It will not stop at 30 addresses but will
>eventually assign the higher IP numbers as people logon and off, this is
>just how the pool works) Besides, the first portmaster will have more
>than one route assigned. I agree, that starting at .0 gives a host with
>that address which "just doesn't feel right", and confuses some
>routers/hosts.
Yarg! I forgot to say except for the first PM, but then my omission is
obvious at least... of I could have said "and for the rest" but then I was
just about to leave.
Guess I should get around to doing a web page and then just post the URL. ;-)
-------------------------------------------
Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator
jeff@mixcom.net
MIX Communications
Serving the Internet since 1990