Re: Proposal: Network configuration file format
On 4 Aug 1999, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>
> > scheme untrusted
> > iface eth1 inet static
> > address 192.168.1.34
> > network 192.168.1.0
> > netmask 255.255.254.0
> > broadcast 192.168.2.255
>
> FWIW, I prefer the 192.168.1.34/23 notation for address and network.
> (shouldn't the broadcast be 192.168.1.255?)
IANADD, but while the /23 notation is nice, it doesn't work for all
possible netmasks. Netmasks do NOT have to be in the form of a bunch of
ones followed by a bunch of zeros. For instance, 255.255.255.3 is a valid
netmask, but you can't represent it as /anything (bits 11111111 11111111
11111111 00000011). It is similar in number of hosts and subnets to a /26,
but not the same. Of course, I don't know anyone who would actually use
such a goofy netmask, but it's possible. BTW, he had the broadcast right
for the network and netmask.
--
Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo - jkaivo@ndn.net - http://www.ndn.net/
"As time goes on, my signature gets shorter and shorter..." - me
Reply to: