Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 10:02:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 950726-SNAP lp0/nfs install bug ? Message-ID: <199508120802.KAA19047@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199508120712.JAA28425@grumble.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at Aug 12, 95 09:12:51 am
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
As Mark Murray wrote:
>
> > That's not the question. The problem in question is only providing
> > a _default_ netmask.
>
> How? Given an IP address these days, you cannot infer a default netmask
> like you used to with the class {ABC}'s. Putting in a number may be more
> dangerous than warning the user that it is missing.
The current scenario falls over, and the user has to interpret the
complaint from ifconfig(8) on the Alt-F2 screen himself. I think this
is inacceptable. (ifconfig is being called like
ifconfig ed0 inet xxx.yyy.zzz.www netmask
if there has not been entered any netmask value.)
I believe most smaller corporate networks and all `private' (192.168)
networks are still masked plainly 0xffffff00.
Jordan, when i think more about it, don't _calculate_ a default mask.
Traditional class A and B networks are always subnetted. So perhaps
0xffffff00 would be the most practical default value.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508120802.KAA19047>