>On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> >On 4 Aug 1998, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >> Classic RIP does not support subnetting. You should switch to a newer
>> >> version of routed that support RIPII (assuming the Ciscos support it),
>> >What sort of question is that? Cisco supports _everything_ :-)
>> Rubbish - we have no end of trouble with cisco routers and RIP for ages.
>
>How odd considering gated and routed chat RIPv2 away happily with ciscos,
>as well as oh, just about everything else on our WAN.
I wish I had talked to you THEN!!!
>
>> Tried to get RIP working between Digital Unix 3.2D2 and 4.0a and a large
>> number of Windows NT systems and other Unix and Apple Macs - NighTmare ( =
>> NT :-) )
>
>Well if it was NT then no wonder. But this is hardly a failing of Cisco if
>NT cant speak RIPv2 according to RFCs. But microsoft has a disturbing
>tendency to ignore RFCs not just in the area of routing.
Agree but prove it!! Then sue...
>
>I wasnt aware MacOS spoke RIPv2.
Quite True - The Macs really weren't involved.
BUT using "Whatroute" ON A MAC as well as various tests from the Unix boxes
proved to us that the routers didn't function satisfactorily.
>
>> In the end we dumped the Cisco's routers, rationalised to Class B addresses
>> and went to asante switches and used Unix to route everything else - fixed
>> it!
>
>Thats called swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, I believe. (Other people
>would call it a kludge).
Yes, but it eliminated routing altogether. Each client effectively did their
own as did the Unix boxes. On top of that we load spread the various clients
and lowered the load on the 2 backbones. Yes, cost a fortune but it
stopped me from going grey!!
>
>-Dan
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu