Re: Ethernet is not started at boot
On Wednesday 07 February 2018 07:09:59 Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:02:18AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> >However, the lead to the problem, that I need more then 256 IP
> > addresses and since I do not want to install my own Linux router
> > behind my 3G Gateway only to have 512 IP adresses or more, I
> > decided to increaase the network with 255.255.127.0. and if the IP
> > is e.g. 192.168.4.12, then the IP range become automatically
> > 192.168.4.0-192.168.5.255.
>
> As someone already pointed out, this is a bogus netmask. I recommend
>
> sipcalc as a handy tool for figuring out network information:
> > sipcalc 192.168.4.0/23
>
> -[ipv4 : 192.168.4.0/23] - 0
>
> [CIDR]
> Host address - 192.168.4.0
> Host address (decimal) - 3232236544
> Host address (hex) - C0A80400
> Network address - 192.168.4.0
> Network mask - 255.255.254.0
> Network mask (bits) - 23
> Network mask (hex) - FFFFFE00
> Broadcast address - 192.168.5.255
> Cisco wildcard - 0.0.1.255
> Addresses in network - 512
> Network range - 192.168.4.0 - 192.168.5.255
> Usable range - 192.168.4.1 - 192.168.5.254
>
> > sipcalc -4 "192.168.4.0 255.255.127.0"
>
> -[ipv4 : 192.168.4.0 255.255.127.0] - 0
>
> -[ERR : Invalid netmask]
>
> > sipcalc -4 "192.168.4.0 255.255.128.0"
>
> -[ipv4 : 192.168.4.0 255.255.128.0] - 0
>
> [CIDR]
> Host address - 192.168.4.0
> Host address (decimal) - 3232236544
> Host address (hex) - C0A80400
> Network address - 192.168.0.0
> Network mask - 255.255.128.0
> Network mask (bits) - 17
> Network mask (hex) - FFFF8000
> Broadcast address - 192.168.127.255
> Cisco wildcard - 0.0.127.255
> Addresses in network - 32768
> Network range - 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.127.255
> Usable range - 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.127.254
Finally, some sanity in this thread, thank you Michael.
--
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: