Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:16:18 -0500 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: ulf@Alameda.net, Bill Vermillion <bill@bilver.magicnet.net>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Routing problem Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980925121618.00714074@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <19980924150846.C24890@Alameda.net> References: <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net> <360938BE.3569E424@eaznet.com> <199809240148.VAA29188@bilver.magicnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.3.32.19980925121618.00714074>