Re: Quick question about secondary addresses

[Will Hargrave <will () harg net>]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:21:06AM -0700, Dan Lockwood wrote:

> I'm in a debate with a guy over the use of 'ip address x.x.x.x s.s.s.s
> secondary' on Cisco gear.  I seem to remember reading that the use of
> secondary addresses is a bad idea, but I can't recall the details of
> why.  Process switched?  Can anyone offer a resource or more specific
> information?

One which hasn't been mentioned - DHCP will break horribly if the dhcp 
shared-subnets declarations don't match the multinetted subnets on the wire.