From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jul 14 11:29:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rapidnet.com (rapidnet.com [205.164.216.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867E337BFD6; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick@rapidnet.com) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by rapidnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16628; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:29:39 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:29:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Nick Rogness To: Andre Albsmeier Cc: Robert Watson , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routed: possible netmask problem ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Nick Rogness wrote: > > > > root@webfix:~>ifconfig fxp0 > > > fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 > > > inet 192.168.1.3 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > > > inet 192.168.1.4 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.1.4 > > > > you have a /32 netmask on 1.4, change it to a /24 address > > (255.255.255.0) and see if that helps. > > I don't have much experience with routed, but I can tell you that the /32 > here is correct in my experience -- the two addresses are in the same /24 > subnet. Putting both in with a netmask of /24 will cause problems due to > muliple routing entries with the same prefix/netmask. > I don't have much experience with routed either. I do agree in "specific" situations, setting both netmasks to /24 could be a problem. I have used /32 within the same network, but I binded it to the loopback interface and used arp (pub). That might solve your problems. I've also run gated without problems with this type of setup. Nick Rogness - Speak softly and carry a Gigabit switch. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message