Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:16:49 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Subject: Re: 950726-SNAP lp0/nfs install bug ? Message-ID: <199508121416.QAA29321@grumble.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > How? Given an IP address these days, you cannot infer a default netmask
> > like you used to with the class {ABC}'s. Putting in a number may be more
> > dangerous than warning the user that it is missing.
>
> The current scenario falls over, and the user has to interpret the
> complaint from ifconfig(8) on the Alt-F2 screen himself. I think this
> is inacceptable. (ifconfig is being called like
>
> ifconfig ed0 inet xxx.yyy.zzz.www netmask
>
> if there has not been entered any netmask value.)
>
> I believe most smaller corporate networks and all `private' (192.168)
> networks are still masked plainly 0xffffff00.
All private are 192.168? NO! This is probably a block that has been
given to your service provider. Ours is 196.7, and our close competitors
are 196.11 and 196.4.
We ask our users to use a netmask of 0xfffffff0 for hysterical raisins.
> Jordan, when i think more about it, don't _calculate_ a default mask.
> Traditional class A and B networks are always subnetted. So perhaps
> 0xffffff00 would be the most practical default value.
I would tend to agree that this is a _much_ better solution, but I would
document that the user should also find out what his netmask is when he
gets an IP address and use _that_ if supplied.
--
Mark Murray
46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa
+27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200
Finger mark@grumble.grondar.za for PGP key
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508121416.QAA29321>