On 2018-12-19 21:28 MET, William Herrin wrote:
Easy: .97 matches neither one because 64 & 97 !=0 and 32 & 97 != 0. That's a 0 that has to match at the end of the 10.20.30.
D'oh! Sorry, I got that wrong. (Trying to battle 10+% packet loss at home and a just upgraded Thunderbird at the same time is bad for my ability to construct consistent email messages, it seems...) 10.20.30.1 is much better example.
The problem is 10.20.30.1 matches both, so which one takes precedence? Can't have a most-specific match when two matching routes have the same specificity.
I'm guessing the answer was: the routing protocols didn't accept netmasks in the first place and you were a fool to intentionally create overlapping static routes.
Agree that it would be foolish, but I was curious what implementations did when encountering such a fool. :-) /Bellman