> How is this OK from an interface configuration view? Yes, there are
> multiple routing protocols that support CIDR, or subnet masks that are less
> than the class of network itself. But, AFAIK you can't have a subnet mask
> on an >interface< that is less than the class of network.
WHY ? I'm had such things for few years with Linux 2.0.x without ill effects !
> 194 is a Class C right?
????
> So the subnet mask must be at least 255.255.255.0 or 24 bits.
Why ????
> What RFC and what section says otherwise?
YOU said that there are some restrictions :-) YOU should show me RFC where such
restrictions are enfoced.
Class C and such things are not relevant to interface configuration at all.
It's perfectly legal to have ip 168.1.1.1 netmask 255.73.209.101 with
broadcast 168.183.47.155. Yes, some route advertising protocols could not
handle such weirdness but linux kernel handle it just fine. I'm tested this
three years ago and Linux was happy with this -- where you find idea that
"subnet mask must be at least 255.255.255.0 or 24 bits" and other strange
ideas ? NOT from route advertising protocols viewpoint, of course !
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/