Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:03:19 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal? |
| |
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Eugene Kanter wrote:
> Quick one: > > kernel 2.0.27 > > ifconfig eth0 206.42.0.97 netmask 255.255.255.254 broadcast 206.42.0.255 > > works fine. > > kernel 2.1.20 > > ifconfig eth0 206.42.0.97 netmask 255.255.255.254 broadcast 206.42.0.255 > SIOCSIFNETMASK: Invalid argument > > What is wrong? > > Did I do something not right or it is kernel bug? > > > Eugene. > Depending upon your network (A, B, C, etc.) Your netmask would probably be 255.255.255.0 255.255.248.0 ... etc. I don't think the last byte would ever be anything but "0" unless you "own" a very small piece of the address. You want your address "97" to fit into the mask, i.e., 0 to 97 inverted.
The kernel is now being "pickey" and actually checking these things. Try 255.255.255.0 even though you might not "own" 255 addresses. Just don't use the ones you don't own.
Cheers, Dick Johnson -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard B. Johnson Project Engineer Analogic Corporation Voice : (508) 977-3000 ext. 3754 Fax : (508) 532-6097 Modem : (508) 977-6870 Ftp : ftp@boneserver.analogic.com Email : rjohnson@analogic.com, johnson@analogic.com Penguin : Linux version 2.1.20 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| |