Your message dated Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:57:37 -0300
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Fwd: Bug#186208: Closing old bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #186208,
regarding the calculated broadcast address is wrong when subnetting
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
186208: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=186208
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ifupdown
Version: 0.6.4-4.4
The interfaces(5) man page indicates that the "broadcast" parameter is
optional for static interface configurations, but if it is not given,
a wrong value is calculated when subnetting is used.
Example:
iface eth2 inet static
address 10.0.0.42
netmask 255.255.255.240
When eth2 is brought up (kernel 2.4.21pre5, net-tools 1.60-4), its
configuration looks like this:
eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:03:08:46:6D
inet addr:10.0.0.42 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.255.255.240
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
i.e. the broadcast address is 10.255.255.255 but should be 10.0.0.47.
As you know, the formula for calculating the broadcast address is
(address & netmask) | !netmask
You could argue that the problem is with ifconfig (ifconfig sets the
wrong broadcast address if none is specified), but then again why doesn't
ifup call it with a valid broadcast address? (And if you argue that way,
why do you require that the netmask be given? ifconfig does not require
this parameter.) I don't think that, on Debian, people should have to
know about the peculiarities of ifconfig since the published mechanism
for defining network interfaces is the ifupdown system. And giving an
address together with a netmask is nowadays the common way.
If you still think this should stay as it is, at least add a note to
interfaces(5) that the broadcast parameter is needed, too.
Thank you very much,
Arndt
--
Arndt Schönewald <[email protected]>, Software Developer
Quelltext AG (http://www.quelltext-ag.de), Dortmund, Germany
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: net-tools
Version: 1.60-17
Following #87784, #122792 and #145004 (boy, this one had many
duplicates), I'm closing this bug because it's not reproducible even on
etch systems, I can reproduce it on sarge, though.
On Sarge:
# ifconfig dummy0 128.42.162.116 netmask 255.255.255.0
# ifconfig dummy0 | head -n2
dummy0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr C2:C5:EF:F4:92:1A
inet addr:128.42.162.116 Bcast:128.42.255.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
# dpkg -s net-tools | grep ^Version:
Version: 1.60-10
On Etch and newer systems:
# ifconfig dummy0 128.42.162.116 netmask 255.255.255.0
# ifconfig dummy0 | head -n2
dummy0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 3A:B1:38:29:F1:FE
inet addr:128.42.162.116 Bcast:128.42.162.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
# dpkg -s net-tools | grep ^Version:
Version: 1.60-17
--
Martín Ferrari
--- End Message ---
