[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:0.083 / U:3.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site