On 2018-12-19 21:28 MET, William Herrin wrote: > Easy: .97 matches neither one because 64 & 97 !=0 and 32 & 97 != 0. > That's a 0 that has to match at the end of the 10.20.30.
D'oh! Sorry, I got that wrong. (Trying to battle 10+% packet loss at
home and a just upgraded Thunderbird at the same time is bad for my
ability to construct consistent email messages, it seems...) 10.20.30.1
is much better example.
> The problem is 10.20.30.1 matches both, so which one takes precedence?
> Can't have a most-specific match when two matching routes have the
> same specificity.
>
> I'm guessing the answer was: the routing protocols didn't accept
> netmasks in the first place and you were a fool to intentionally
> create overlapping static routes.
Agree that it would be foolish, but I was curious what implementations
did when encountering such a fool. :-)
/Bellman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
