The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2001-Mar> msg00102



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

RE: loopback /32 mask

  • From: "Martin, Christian" <cmartin@gnilink.net>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:30:25 -0500
  • Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:58:29 -0500
  • To: "'rcheung@slb.com'" <rcheung@slb.com>, MPLS Mailing List <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>

Because anything larger would waste addresses.  Were you to use, say, a 24
bit mask on a loopback, then every address in that range would be reachable
via the loopback.  If you wish to waste IP space, then use shorter masks.

regards,
chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Cheung [mailto:rcheung@slb.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 5:56 PM
> To: MPLS Mailing List
> Subject: loopback /32 mask
> 
> 
> Any particular reason for loopback to be /32 mask during 
> RSVP-TE config? I
> understand it's good to have loopback as router id or 
> headend, or ..., but
> my question is, is it mandatory that the mask should be /32? 
> why other masks
> won't work?
> regards,
> 
> ================================================
> Yinglam (Raymond) Cheung
> Schlumberger Network Solutions
> CCIE (R/S), CCNP+ATM, CCDP
> Tel: (713) 513-3285
> 5599 San Felipe St Suite 400
> Houston, TX 77056
> Email: rcheung@slb.com
> ================================================
> 
> -------
> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
> Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
> 

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml