Good find Matt, Deliciously cryptic... Does it imply that routed traffic DOES work to even address only? And what exactly does it even mean - since this table is explicitly "Routing Protocol", does it tell us that the problem is in the routing protocol itself, or in the resulting routing table? 🤷♂️ Cheers! -----Original Message----- From: Public <public-bounces@talk.mikrotik.com.au> On Behalf Of Matthew Kobayashi via Public Sent: Tuesday, 9 January 2024 1:00 PM To: MikroTik Australia Public List <public@talk.mikrotik.com.au> Cc: Matthew Kobayashi <matthew@kobayashi.au> Subject: Re: [MT-AU Public] /31 Deployments for Point-to-Point links Hi all, Figured I'd drop this one from the MikroTik docs here, as I hadn't seen it mentioned already: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview#:~:text... Cheers, Matt On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 11:28, Karl Auer via Public < public@talk.mikrotik.com.au> wrote:
On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 10:44 +1000, Tim Allingham via Public wrote:
Hmm, but if we're being pedantic wouldn't there also be 0 usable addresses in a /31 once network ID and broadcast have been reserved?
It's a subnet containing two addresses, both reserved. You can use the remaining addresses however you like :-)
Or, since you know that you and old mate at the other end are by definition the only two nodes on this network, you could just agree to talk...
IPv6 has RFC 6164 (and RFC 6547 explicitly consigns RFC 3627 to the dustbin of history).
IPv4 has RFC 3021.
Regards, K.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@nullarbor.com.au) work +61 2 64957435 http://www.nullarbor.com.au mobile +61 428 957160
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com. au
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@talk.mikrotik.com.au http://talk.mikrotik.com.au/mailman/listinfo/public_talk.mikrotik.com.au