From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May 25 02:12:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C274F37B401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 25 May 2003 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from foem.leiden.webweaving.org (fia224-72.dsl.hccnet.nl
	[62.251.72.224])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8D343F75
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 25 May 2003 02:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dirkx@webweaving.org)
Received: from foem (IDENT:chuckwebweaving.org@foem [10.11.0.2])
	h4P9Cev7032791;	Sun, 25 May 2003 11:12:40 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dirkx@webweaving.org)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:12:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
X-X-Sender: dirkx@foem
To: Grant Peel <grant@thenetnow.com>
In-Reply-To: <031201c3225f$8f24ffb0$6401a8c0@grant>
Message-ID: <20030525111102.H75414-100000@foem>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IP alias Networking Errors.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 09:12:48 -0000



On Sat, 24 May 2003, Grant Peel wrote:

> fxp0: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>         inet 65.39.193.154 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 65.39.193.159
>         inet 65.39.193.155 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.155
>         inet 65.39.193.156 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.156
>         inet 65.39.193.157 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.157
>         inet 216.187.107.125 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.125
>         inet 216.187.107.126 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.126
>         inet 216.187.107.123 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.123
>         inet 216.187.107.124 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.124

Over here I have the same issue at my colo. The man page suggest a /32
netmask for all -but- the first on that subnet.SO I am using

>         inet 65.39.193.154 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 65.39.193.159
>         inet 65.39.193.155 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.155
>         inet 65.39.193.156 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.156
>         inet 65.39.193.157 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.157
>>        inet 216.187.107.125 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 216.187.107.125
>         inet 216.187.107.126 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.126
>         inet 216.187.107.123 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.123
>         inet 216.187.107.124 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.124

Which got rid of my warnings.

Dw.