From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jun  8 16:14:07 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA04341
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 16:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA04333;
          Sat, 8 Jun 1996 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA01717; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.freebsd.org>,
        current@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: As of 960608, routed now complains bitterly.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:52:48 EDT."
             <9606081852.AA02677@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> 
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:13:47 -0700
Message-ID: <1715.834275627@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> This means that your netmasks are not configured correctly, either on
> the host, or a router to that network, or both.  It happens when

Hmmm.  There are two hosts on this wire, one is the complaining host
and the other is the gateway.  Here are the interfaces for each:

[The complaining host]

root@time-> ifconfig -a
de0: flags=c843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK2,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet 204.216.27.226 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 204.216.27.239
        ether 00:80:48:e8:01:4d 
lp0: flags=8810<POINTOPOINT,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
sl0: flags=c010<POINTOPOINT,LINK2,MULTICAST> mtu 552
lo0: flags=8009<UP,LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 

[And now the gateway, the only other host on the wire]

root@whisker-> ifconfig -a
ed0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet 204.216.27.228 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 204.216.27.239
        ether 00:00:c0:13:92:72 
lp0: flags=8810<POINTOPOINT,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
lo0: flags=8009<UP,LOOPBACK,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 
ppp0: flags=8010<POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
sl0: flags=9011<UP,POINTOPOINT,LINK0,MULTICAST> mtu 552
        inet 204.216.27.194 --> 204.216.27.193 netmask 0xfffffff0 
tun0: flags=8010<POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1500

Given that this is a 16 host subnet, it stands to reason that the
netmask on de0/ed0 is correct.  The sl0 line shouldn't matter (it goes
to freefall, which also has correct netmasks for everything, just
BTW).

So now where's my problem? :-)

						Jordan