Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:54:54 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> To: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net>, "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Resolver issues Message-ID: <00120619545404.01722@buffy> In-Reply-To: <20001206131322.DA8CB37B400@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20001206131322.DA8CB37B400@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 06 December 2000 03:42, Duke Normandin wrote: > On 5 Dec 00 at 12:56, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> From: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> > >> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:04:32 -0700 > >> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > >> > >> On 4 Dec 00 at 16:51, Alexander Anderson wrote: > >> Hi... > >> > >> >On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:17:41 PM or thereabouts, Crist J . Clark > >> > > >> >wrote: > >> >> > $ ifconfig tun0 | grep "inet " > >> >> > inet 64.229.84.85 --> 64.229.84.1 netmask 0xffffff00 > >> >> > >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^ > >> >> Well that doesn't look right. > >> > > >> >Hmm, what should it be? I'll try to experiment with my network settings > >> >then. And here's my ``ppp.conf'' by the way; does anything look strange > >> >here? > >> > >> I'm just a dumb newbie, so I might be totally wrong, but 64.229.84.85 > >> looks an awful like a Class A address. If it is, the netmask s/b > >> 255.0.0.0 or 0xff000000. Somebody horse-whip me if I'm out-to-lunch > >> here.... > > > >There are no classfull addresses any more. 64 is being handed out in > >the same chunks that other addresses have been handed out. Classless > >addressing has been the norm in the Internet backbone for about 5 > >years. That said, I don't know if 0xffffff00 is the correct netmask, > >but I do know that 0xff000000 is not correct. > > Something told me to keep my yap shut... but noooo! I've been reading a > couple of books (the suckers must out-of-date!) trying to learn about > creating subnets from a single IP address. Of course the matter of > netmasks and subnet-masks is pivotal to the readings. I thought I had the > stuff aced ;( I wouldn't worry, most of the literature is still a little schizoid about this whole subject..telling you class A/B/C addresses were the "old" way, and then mentioning them again and again. The problem was the original addressing scheme was causing addresses to run out basically. The class B ones were the criminals. So the whole thing was divied up in a different way..as mentioned here. > > >The proper way to specify a network is prefix/length. > >E.g. 127.0.0.1/32, 128.1.0.0/22, 64.229.84.1.0/23. > > Would you translate the above to the old way, so that I can see the logic. > I read it as: > > address: 127.0.0.1 use 32 bits for the netmask > address: 128.1.0.0 use 22 bits for the netmask (11111111 11111111 > 11111100 00000000) or 0xfffffc00 > > >But I think I'll pass on the horse-whipping. (Are you the whip or is > >the horse? Either way it sound like animal cruelty.) > > I've broken & trained quite a few horses in my lifetime, and *never* > injured or whipped a one. They've put a hurting to me though on several > occasions ;,) Forget horse-whip, thanks for not flaming my butt! > > -duke > Calgary,Alberta, Canada > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00120619545404.01722>