From owner-freebsd-isp  Fri Jan 23 05:33:00 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA00598
          for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:33:00 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ns.mexcom.net ([200.38.135.171])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA00591
          for <isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:32:57 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eculp@ver1.telmex.net.mx)
Received: from mc.mexcom.net (ppp-8.mexcom.net [206.103.65.200])
	by ns.mexcom.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA05300;
	Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:29:31 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <34C89C97.15FB7483@ver1.telmex.net.mx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:35:19 -0600
From: eculp <eculp@ver1.telmex.net.mx>
Organization: MexCom
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-971226-SNAP i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk>
CC: isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: IP address aliases...
References: <34C88CD1.7AFAF4DF@tdx.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Karl Pielorz wrote:
> 
> A while ago I asked about this subject - and was correctly told that secondary
> / additional addresses bound to an interface under FreeBSD (I'm using 2.2.2 &
> 2.2.5) have to have a netmask of 0xffffffff (255.255.255.255).
> 
> What happens if I have to do the following:
> 
> ep0: 192.168.100.1 netmask 255.255.255.242
> 
> then I want to add:
> 
> ep0: 10.10.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.252  ***** alias

I use 
# ifconfig ep0 inet 10.10.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.252 alias
It's worked fine for me since one of my ethernet cards
died about three months ago :-) two networks on the same 
cable, same card, I still haven't bought another card :-)

provecho

ed
> 
> (above are obviously fake addresses)
> 
> Do I still have to munge the netmask on the second address to 255.255.255.255?
> - or is this a 'different' case as the 2 IP numbers are in fact on completely
> different networks? (i.e. not adding a 2nd IP address on the same network as
> the first)?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Karl Pielorz