From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 2 21:08:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA10608 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 21:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sand.sentex.ca (sand.sentex.ca [206.222.77.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA10599 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 21:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gravel (gravel.sentex.ca [205.211.165.210]) by sand.sentex.ca (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id AAA12645; Sat, 3 May 1997 00:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970503001202.0093ae60@sentex.net> X-Sender: mdtancsa@sentex.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 00:12:02 -0400 To: Leland Heaton , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: Tutorial Question (packet routing) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970502205629.006952a8@king.cts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >Now here is my two problems. First off, is it safe to assume that in the >first ifconfig_ed0, the 255.255.255.0 is a default value since nothing has >been mentioned about it? I would say no... I would say explicitly state the netmask.... (192.168.1.1 is the sample IP address. Second, >It would make sense to me that the lines: > ><> ifconfig_ed0="inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0" ><> & ><> ifconfig_ed0="inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00" > >should be EXACTLY the same?? Since the are in the same section. Can >someone tell me which line is the correct line and netmask for my machine? Different way of expressing the same thing... ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa (mike@sentex.net) * To do is to be -- Nietzsche Sentex Communications Corp, * To be is to do -- Sartre Cambridge, Ontario * Do be do be do -- Sinatra (http://www.sentex.net/~mdtancsa) *