Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 15:42:22 +0100 From: David Pick <D.M.Pick@qmw.ac.uk> To: Fernando Schapachnik <fschapachnik@vianetworks.com.ar> Cc: "Douglas G. Allen" <dallen@roe35.lth2.k12.il.us>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw question Message-ID: <E15U83q-0005IG-00@xi.css.qmw.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:26:10 -0300." <20010807112610.H34971@ns1.via-net-works.net.ar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The ifconfig's are set up so that fxp0 is IP a.b.c.d netmask > > 255.255.255.192 and fxp0_alias is a.b.c.e netmask 255.255.255.255. > = > 255.255.255.255 is an invalid netmask (I don't even know why ifconfig > didn't rejected it). Not so - I've used it successfully. > It should have the same netmask of the fxp0 > interface if what you mean is to have a machine with two IPs on the > same network. However, *if* the two IP addresses are within the same subnet, then I do agree with you that they should have the same netmask. And should be on the same interface! Since the subnet mask in this case is 255.255.255.192 it isn't clear from the "a.b.c.d" and "a.b.c.e" if the two addresses are in the same subnet or different but close subnets. -- = David Pick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E15U83q-0005IG-00>