Re: Hiding NATs with PF
From: jpd (read_the_sig_at_do.not.spam.it.invalid)
Date: 09/29/05
- Next message: haggis: "/usr at 103%"
- Previous message: Max Bolingbroke: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- In reply to: Greg Hennessy: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- Next in thread: ?: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 29 Sep 2005 14:37:17 GMT
Begin <ih7nj1t08v0ef2ifnem0jucj81o6mh39h4@4ax.com>
On 2005-09-29, Greg Hennessy <me@privacy.org> wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2005 23:08:43 GMT, jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid>
> wrote:
>>Well, they might still run RIP.
>
> LOL, RIP as the IGP on a campus sized network is too horrifying to
> contemplate.
It happens. Mind that RIPv2 can do CIDR and that you can easily build a
notwork that is mostly switched. I know of one campus where the routers
did about 5% of the routing decisions, the rest was done by the layer 3
``look what the router does and imitate it'' switches. Don't know about
RIP on that network though. But I'm sure it's still deployed in places.
-- j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
- Next message: haggis: "/usr at 103%"
- Previous message: Max Bolingbroke: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- In reply to: Greg Hennessy: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- Next in thread: ?: "Re: Hiding NATs with PF"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|