Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:19:55 +1100 (EST)
From:      "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au>
To:        Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Setting PPP netmask! HOW!
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.91.961112091444.1559E-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19961111214235.roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ollivier Robert wrote:

> According to dennis:
> > market. I believe that the netmask is meaningless on a PTP interface,
> > so even if you get it to display the way you want  you won't have
> > achieved much of anything.
> 
> That's not true. 
> 
> Consider my case. We -- a group of friends -- have a C-class address
> (/24). We have cut in in 16 subnets (/28) and distributed the subnets
> between us. We connect thru PPP to a machine in one of these subnets. My
> ethernet at home has another subnet. We have an interconnection subnet for
> the Internet router.

Olivier, what you say is true, however you are using the netmask to 
define the netmask of the *remote* end of the ppp link, not the local 
end.  In James' case, he is running in 'numberless' mode, and he is 
seeking to define a netmask for his local end.  That does not make sense, 
and is totally unnecessary, as Denis says.  Simply put, the difference is 
that you are running a ppp link within a single IP network (happens to be 
class C), while James is running a ppp link between two distinct IP networks.
You: 193.56.58.20 --> 193.56.58.234
James: 203.16.20.1 --> 203.8.105.20

regards,

Danny



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961112091444.1559E-100000>