Also sprach Colin Wantling
Maybe yes, maybe no.
No "maybe" to it...as long as the next-hop of the route isn't within the route itself, there's no problem. 10.1.1.12 isn't within 10.1.1.9/32, so there's no problem. Even if it were, its *possible* to even get that to work...but there's not a "standard" way of doing it. If you put the /32 in there, its gonna be the most specific route, so it will (should) be referenced before any shorter length match. At that point, the only questions are, "Is the next-hop reachable?" There's another route that is valid for the next-hop address (locally connected), so yes. "Is there a higher precedence route of the same mask length (ie, /32)?" Possible, but unlikely.
The route Mike is adding has a /32 mask, he doesn't say what the mask is on the HARC ethernet interface already.
Doesn't matter. As long as the next-hop for the /32 route is reachable, it should be accepted. Even if the next-hop isn't reachable, the route should probably be accepted...just not entered into the active routing table.
By giving it an address from another subnet, you can beat the rules.
s/rules/bugs/ :) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.