From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Sep 25 10:18:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04091 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from peak.mountin.net (peak.mountin.net [207.227.119.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04081 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:18:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff-ml@mountin.net) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by peak.mountin.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA05690; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:17:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from harkol-12.isdn.mke.execpc.com(169.207.64.140) by peak.mountin.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005688; Fri Sep 25 12:17:26 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980925121618.00714074@207.227.119.2> X-Sender: jeff-ml@207.227.119.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:16:18 -0500 To: ulf@Alameda.net, Bill Vermillion , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Routing problem In-Reply-To: <19980924150846.C24890@Alameda.net> References: <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net> <360938BE.3569E424@eaznet.com> <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 03:08 PM 9/24/98 -0700, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: >On Wed, Sep 23, 1998 at 09:48:10PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote: >> Eddie Fry recently said: >> > Randal, >> > >> > Ronald says he has 2 class C's so his mask should be 255.255.255.0. >> >> He says he has two class C's but he's using class A addressing. >> >> Shouldn't the netmask really be 254.0.0.0 ? That way it will >> supernet the 10.1 and the 10.2 into two parallel blocks out of >> address.. 10.1 thru 10.2. > >254 would give you a supernet which includes 10.0.0.0/8 and 11.0.0.0/8. > >> >> I know you can't use the 1 bit mask in the subnetting a c because >> it will give a network address and a mask with nothing in between. >> >> Will a 254.0.0.0 set it up so that 10.1.0.0 is the base and >> 10.2.255.255 is the broadcast. > >To do that, the netmask would be 255.252.0.0, but that would include >10.0.0.0/16, 10.1.0.0/16, 10.2.0.0/16 and 10.3.0.0/16, so the broadcast >would be 10.3.255.255 But isn't 10.0.0.0/255.254.0.0 a valid netmask? It would give 10.0.0.0/16 and 10.1.0.0/16, which wouldn't work for the posted is doing ie routing between the 2 networks. It certainly isn't a CIDR mask, but should be valid for supernets. Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking jeff@mountin.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message