RE: (PM) PM3 not dead-ending routes upon discon.

Jason Slagle (raistlin@tacorp.net)
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:22:57 -0400 (EDT)

The PM4 has a whole lot more addresses you need to filter. Makes more
sense to do it there first.

Jason

---
Jason Slagle                        
Network Administrator - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio
- raistlin@tacorp.net - jslagle@toledolink.com - WHOIS JS10172 


On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Pete Templin wrote:


> 	I'm sorry, but to little old me it's not obvious why this (or any
> feature for which the PM-3 hardware is capable of supporting, or PM-2
> series for that matter) feature will be available first.
> 
> 	Last I knew, the PM-3 was Lucingston's primary development
> platform, and as such, new features could be expected there first.  Has
> this changed?  Likewise, last I knew the PM-4 wasn't mature yet, in that
> it didn't have the redundant system manager modules in full support,
> address pools that can cleanly utilize VLSM and available IP address
> space, etc.  Is the PM-4 getting feature priority before it is a platform
> that the ISPs I handle can put their faith in?


-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>