From owner-freebsd-net Sat Sep 5 19:08:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08904 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 19:08:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA08899 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 19:08:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA21401; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:06:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:06:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <199809060206.WAA21401@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: netmask of 0 not permitted (3.0-current) In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < said: > ifconfig ep0 netmask 0.0.0.0 > inet 192.168.10.21 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.10.255 Right. You have discovered that the flag to SIOCAIFADDR which means `I don't know the netmask, take a wild guess' happens to have the bit pattern all-bits-zero. > It seems to me that a netmask of 0 is not illegitimate, as I might want to > have all packets go to the local network. The only legitimate route with a netmask of zero is the default route. > Am I doing something wrong? :) Pretty evil, if you ask me, but I suspect `route add default -interface ed0 -cloning' might do the trick. It sounds like what you really wanted was a script which analyzed tcpdump output to see who is arping for whom. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message