26 Aug
2013
26 Aug
'13
2:57 p.m.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Marc, LX1DUC wrote:
For all other cases the tunl0 interface is defined
without a remote
host ip address, setting the mask to 255.0.0.0 might bypass the static
routes setup via rip44d or encap.txt or any other way. Connected
routes usually have a higher preference than static routes.
Only if the routes have the same prefix-length. Otherwise longest match
wins is still the rule.
So unless you're using the new amprd, usage of
netmask 255.0.0.0 might
result in issues contacting non-local AMPR subnets.
How many non-local AMPR subnets do you know of that have a prefix
length of 8 or less? :)
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com