[114447] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: two interfaces one subnet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon May 11 18:05:14 2009
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <388309A6-5E66-45C9-9F7C-65FAC8475CC1@sendmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:51:58 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 11, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote:
> On 11.05.2009, at 22:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote:
>>
>>> I would be grateful for a pointer to such an RFC statement,
>>> assuming it exists.
>>
>> Why would an RFC prohibit this?
>>
>> Most _implementations_ do, but as far as network "rules" in general
>> it is a valid configuration.
>
> That was essentially my conclusion as well: logically it can't work,
> but I wasn't certain where it might be forbidden.
How did you read what I wrote and say what you said? I've read it
several times and I can't get from point A to point B. Did you do a
major typo or something?
I said it is valid. After saying you came to the same conclusion, you
then said "logically it can't work". Your statement not only
contradicts what I said, but contradicts the fact is has and does work.
Let me be clear: IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN. IT WORKS FINE.
--
TTFN,
patrick
