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>