> On Dec 19, 2018, at 12:11 , Thomas Bellman <bell...@nsc.liu.se> wrote: > > On 2018-12-19 20:47 MET, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > >> There was indeed a fairly long stretch of time (until the CIDR RFC came out >> and >> specifically said it wasn't at all canon) where we didn't have an RFC that >> specifically said that netmask bits had to be contiguous. > > How did routers select the best (most specific) route for an address? > If the routing table held both (e.g.) 10.20.30.0/255.255.255.64 and > 10.20.30.0/255.255.255.32, then 10.20.30.97 would match both, and have > the same number of matching bits. > > /Bellman > The institution of the longest match rule came with the prohibition (deprecation) of discontiguous net masks. Owen
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Saku Ytti
- RE: Stupid Question maybe? Naslund, Steve
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Patrick W. Gilmore
- RE: Stupid Question maybe? Naslund, Steve
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Adam Atkinson
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Smoot Carl-Mitchell
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? valdis . kletnieks
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Thomas Bellman
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? William Herrin
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Thomas Bellman
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Owen DeLong
- RE: Stupid Question maybe? David Edelman
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Baldur Norddahl
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Joe
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? valdis . kletnieks
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? William Allen Simpson
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Saku Ytti
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Joel Halpern
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Tony Finch
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Chuck Church
- Re: Stupid Question maybe? Baldur Norddahl