Stupid Question maybe?

Wed Dec 19 20:44:33 UTC 2018

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181219/75ff75a4/attachment.sig>