Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 01:15:14 +1100 (EST) From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au> To: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij) Cc: guido@IAEhv.nl, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bug in UDP stack with our aliasing scheme :-( Message-ID: <199512291415.BAA05189@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <199512291310.OAA28407@gvr.win.tue.nl> from "Guido van Rooij" at Dec 29, 95 02:10:46 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guido van Rooij writes: > I think we ought reconsidering why the netmask of an ip alias on the same > subnet as the `real' ip adres is to be set to 0xffffffff in stead of the > real subnet mask. This definately breaks several things. Currently, I have a machine which has two aliases with a netmask of 255.255.255.240 (in two different subnets) but on the same ethernet card. It also has two other aliases in its non-primary subnet with netmasks of 255.255.255.255. Are you suggesting that this will work (correctly) if all aliases are outside of the primary subnet and have the latter netmask ? I also note that, whilst you can traceroute to any of the addresses with the 240 netmask, you cannot to an alias. This disturbs some domain administrators who like to check your connectivity before delegating a zone to you :-( It's not as bad as getting two answers back but having to explain over and over .. <sigh> .. michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512291415.BAA05189>