Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> So sprach Aaron Cohen am Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 10:57:10AM -0500:
> > I noticed that Udo has his netmask set to 255.255.240.0 are you sure that
> > that is correct, Uwe?
>
> Well, .240. IS a legal notation. If you take the private net from
> 172.16.0.0. to 172.32.0.0 you have the netmask 255.240.0.0. BUT I tried to
> setup a net with this netmask as well, and it did not work. dhclient kept on
> telling me that this is no legal netmask. Once I changed this to
> 255.255.0.0 dhclient was happy.
Sounds like dhclient is using the old 'classful' rules vs the newer
'classless'...
<sidebar>
Since discontiguous mask bits (such as 0xfff0e011 aka 255.240.224.17 (now _that_
would have been confusing :^)) were deprecated several years ago, we should move
on to using the clearer and more compact "/[0-32]" notation, like this:
172.16.0.0/0 (0x00000000 aka 0.0.0.0)
172.16.0.0/1 (0x80000000 aka 128.0.0.0)
172.16.0.0/2 (0xc0000000 aka 192.0.0.0)
172.16.0.0/8 (0xff000000 aka 255.0.0.0)
172.16.0.0/16 (0xffff0000 aka 255.255.0.0)
172.16.0.0/20 (0xfffff000 aka 255.255.240.0)
172.16.0.0/24 (0xffffff00 aka 255.255.255.0)
172.16.0.0/32 (0xffffffff aka 255.255.255.255)
to avoid all this mask confusion... It's too bad the decimal notation was ever
used for masks in the first place...
</sidebar>
> Alexander Skwar
Pierre
