[lkml]   [1997]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is netmask illigal?
    On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

    > Now come on! The poor guy had such a bad netmask, probably a typo that had
    > worked for a long time, but not with the newer kernels, so I tried to help
    > by telling him a netmask that would at least work. Since ".97" is higher
    > than 63, lower than 127, he could very well have 1 to 127 or 1 to 254 as

    You don't _know_ that 97 doesn't include some subnet bits. Admittedly
    it's not likely, but you never know.

    > a valid range of addresses. In this case, ".255.0" would be fine at least
    > until he found more out about his network typogaphy.

    Perhaps, but you ought to at least tell him that he _does_ need to go and
    find out what it should really be.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.019 / U:1.288 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site