Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach Pierre Fortin am Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:13:02AM -0400:
> > to avoid all this mask confusion... It's too bad the decimal notation was ever
> > used for masks in the first place...
>
> Hmm, but at least for me the decimal notation is clearer than the other
> notation. Or maybe it's just, that I'm more used to it. Anyway, what is
> 255.240.0.0 in "your" notation?
>
> Alexander Skwar
> --
> Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx
> Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys
> ICQ: 7328191
Hi,
I read all replys and all talked about my or differnt other netmasks.
I think it does not make sense to talk about if and which netmask I should use,
fact is that my netmask is legal and should work.
Maybe this was a little bit confusing, I had put the netmask it in my ifcfg-tr0.
But now I have removed it from there and pump take the netmask
provided from the dhcp-server. This netmask 255.255.240.0 is the
offical netmask which is used by all clients in our network.
So I have to use this netmask too.
In the past I think, the dhclient got the netmask correctly and
was working well without special config-files.
Should I now create a dhclient.conf ?
or is this a bug in dhclient ?
Udo
