Messages in this thread | | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Subject | Re: IFF_POINTOPOINT and netmasks | Date | 25 May 1997 13:49:47 +0200 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970524215317.1926A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>, Richard B. Johnson <root@analogic.com> wrote: >On 24 May 1997, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >> >> The thing is - the default netmask should be 255.255.255.255, but if want >> to override it, I think it should be possible. Right? At this moment the >> kernel prevents me from doing it by resetting things I explicitly set. >> Maybe Alexey Kuznetsov reads this, he should know.. >> >> Mike. > >But... The default route is where everything that is masked by your >network netmask should go! As such, a netmask on the default route >doesn't make any sense. Isn't it just a place-holder so that the tools >used to set the default route don't have to be special?
I didn't say "default route". I said "default netmask", and with that I ment the netmask a ptp interface gets if you don't specify it.
>If you want to block a set of addresses from being accessed, you need >to use a router like the 'Cisco' or Linux "firewall". Lets say I don't want >anybody to access 123.321.321.321, I can't do this with a netmask without >preventing access to 254 other nodes (0xff - 1). You would have to "mask" >specific addresses. This is what routers can do for you.
I think you are talking about something entirely different.
Mike. -- | Miquel van Smoorenburg | "I need more space" "Well, why not move to Texas" | | miquels@cistron.nl | "No, on my account, stupid." "Stupid? Uh-oh.." | | PGP fingerprint: FE 66 52 4F CD 59 A5 36 7F 39 8B 20 F1 D6 74 02 |
| |