From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 11 14:22:02 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA15273 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA15244 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA03658; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:19:56 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:19:55 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Ollivier Robert cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Setting PPP netmask! HOW! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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