Hello,
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 09:07:23PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:59:59AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > No. What's the netmask if you have:
> > >
> > >
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:59:59AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > No. What's the netmask if you have:
> >
> > IP: 192.168.255.132
> > broadcast: 192.168.255.255 ?
>
> It's 255.255.0.0.
>
> Specify
Hello,
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Tom Reed wrote:
> > If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
> > And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
> > Then I should have the possibility to cal the netmask addr: 255.255.255.0
> >
&g
On May 23, 2023, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Dan Purgert wrote:
> > On May 22, 2023, gene heskett wrote:
> > > I don't see it, 255 is all 8 bits set, 256 is all 8 bits cleared
> > > and carry set.
> >
> > In "natural counting", 2^8 is 256. (1, 2, 3, 4, ... , 256).
>
> In any
Dan Purgert wrote:
> On May 22, 2023, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 5/22/23 15:04, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:16:09PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> > > > On 5/22/23 03:32, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
On Tue, 23 May 2023, Tom Reed wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:24:10AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
Sorry for my newbie question too.
If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
Then I should have the possibility to cal the netmask addr:
255.255.255.0
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 07:48:46PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> On 5/22/23 15:04, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > That's right, but then they go 0 .. 2^8 - 1. 2^8 is still 256, Tim does
> > have a point there :-)
> >
> I don't see it, 255 is all 8 bits set, 256 is all 8 bits cleared and carry
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Tom Reed wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
> > And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
> > Then I should have the possibility to cal the net
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:08:26PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:39:21AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
> > For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
> > calculate the netmask?
>
> I hope this is a theoretical question, beca
> > Why are you asking these questions? What's your ACTUAL issue?
> >
>
> IIRC, last year my ISP gives me 8 IPv4, they said the first is network
> addr, the last is broadcast addr, then I have to calculate the netmask by
> myself.
Well, they told you the additional
On May 22, 2023, gene heskett wrote:
> On 5/22/23 15:04, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:16:09PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> > > On 5/22/23 03:32, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > >
> > > > number; for (human) display it is
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:24:10AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
>> Sorry for my newbie question too.
>>
>> If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
>> And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
>> Then I should have the possibility to cal the netmask a
> >>
> >> For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
> >> calculate the netmask?
> >
> >
> > You can't.
> >
>
> Hello
>
> Sorry for my newbie question too.
>
> If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
> A
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:24:10AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
> Sorry for my newbie question too.
>
> If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
> And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
> Then I should have the possibility to cal the netmask addr: 255.255.255.0
>
> Isn't
Tom Reed wrote:
>
>
>
> If I know the network addr: 192.168.1.0
> And know the broadcast addr: 192.168.1.255
> Then I should have the possibility to cal the netmask addr: 255.255.255.0
>
> Isn't it?
No. What's the netmask if you have:
IP: 192.168.255.132
broadcast: 192.168.255.255 ?
-dsr-
Tom Reed wrote:
>
> >
> > That's right, but then they go 0 .. 2^8 - 1. 2^8 is still 256, Tim does
> > have a point there :-)
> >
>
> For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
> calculate the netmask?
You can't.
You can assume th
> Tom Reed wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > That's right, but then they go 0 .. 2^8 - 1. 2^8 is still 256, Tim
>> does
>> > have a point there :-)
>> >
>>
>> For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
>> calculate
On May 22, 2023, at 8:08 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:39:21AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
>> For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
>> calculate the netmask?
>I hope this is a theoretical question, because this is backwards.
&
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:39:21AM +0800, Tom Reed wrote:
> For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
> calculate the netmask?
I hope this is a theoretical question, because this is backwards.
Normally you would specify the IP address and the netmask, and the
so
On 5/22/23 15:04, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:16:09PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
On 5/22/23 03:32, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
(called "octets" for obvious
>
> That's right, but then they go 0 .. 2^8 - 1. 2^8 is still 256, Tim does
> have a point there :-)
>
For a given ipv4, if I know net addr and broadcast addr, how will I
calculate the netmask?
--
sent from https://dkinbox.com/
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:16:09PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> On 5/22/23 03:32, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
> > > (called "octets" for obvious reasons), and those octets only
On 5/22/23 03:32, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
(called "octets" for obvious reasons), and those octets only can
go from 0 to 255 (since 2^8 == 255).
Nit, but 2^8 is 256.
.
The octets
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:11:50AM -0400, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
[...]
> Point-to-point links should have a mask of 255.255.255.252. This provides
> a Network, Broadcast and two host addresses.
In practice, I've seen both: /30 and /31. Wikipedia [1] quotes RFC3021,
which states /31 for
cor...@free.fr wrote:
> On 22/05/2023 11:08, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> > > In CIDR a host address is xx.xx.xx.xx/32 which means 255.255.255.255.
> > > isn't it?
> > >
> >
> > It depends on what question you're asking.
> >
> > An individual address is a
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:12 AM wrote:
> On 22/05/2023 11:08, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> In CIDR a host address is xx.xx.xx.xx/32 which means 255.255.255.255.
> >> isn't it?
> >>
> >
> > It depends on what question you're
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 3:41?AM Tim Woodall
wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
Loopback interface.
I don't much use ipv4 any more if I can avoid
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 3:32 AM Tim Woodall
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
> > (called "octets" for obvious reasons), and those octets only can
> > go from 0 to 255 (since 2^8 == 255).
> >
> Nit, but
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 3:41 AM Tim Woodall
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
>
> > The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
> > Loopback interface.
> >
>
> I don't much use ipv4 any more if I can avoid it b
On 22/05/2023 11:08, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023, cor...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
In CIDR a host address is xx.xx.xx.xx/32 which means 255.255.255.255.
isn't it?
It depends on what question you're asking.
An individual address is a /32, but a host address might be listed as a
On Mon, 22 May 2023, cor...@free.fr wrote:
On 22/05/2023 09:41, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
Loopback interface.
I don't much use ipv4 any more if I can avoid it but isn't
On 22/05/2023 09:41, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
Loopback interface.
I don't much use ipv4 any more if I can avoid it but isn't it normal
for
point-to-point links to have
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:41:13AM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
>
> > The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
> > Loopback interface.
> >
>
> I don't much use ipv4 any more if I ca
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:32:14AM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
> > (called "octets" for obvious reasons), and those octets only can
> > go from 0 to 255 (since 2^8 == 255).
> >
>
On Sun, 21 May 2023, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
The only address that should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255 is the
Loopback interface.
I don't much use ipv4 any more if I can avoid it but isn't it normal for
point-to-point links to have a netmask of 255.255.255.255?
It definitely can
On Mon, 22 May 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
number; for (human) display it is subdivided into four 8 bit chunks
(called "octets" for obvious reasons), and those octets only can
go from 0 to 255 (since 2^8 == 255).
Nit, but 2^8 is 256.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 04:49:07AM +0200, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> currently the netmask for an IPv4 is 255.255.255.255.
> I am just not sure, why can't the netmask for IPv4 be 768.768.768.768?
> Can I set that a netmask directly in linux OS?
> If so we have mu
On Mon, 22 May 2023 04:49:07 +0200
cor...@free.fr wrote:
> currently the netmask for an IPv4 is 255.255.255.255.
> I am just not sure, why can't the netmask for IPv4 be 768.768.768.768?
> Can I set that a netmask directly in linux OS?
> If so we have much more IPv4 space available,
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 10:49 PM wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> currently the netmask for an IPv4 is 255.255.255.255.
> I am just not sure, why can't the netmask for IPv4 be 768.768.768.768?
>
The IPv4 standard only allows each octet to be a value between 0 - 255.
Each Octet is 8 bi
Hello list,
currently the netmask for an IPv4 is 255.255.255.255.
I am just not sure, why can't the netmask for IPv4 be 768.768.768.768?
Can I set that a netmask directly in linux OS?
If so we have much more IPv4 space available, even no IPv6 is needed.
Thank you.
Corey H.
Hi *,
it's some time now (I can't say how long) that I have a little problem on my
Debian (it's an unstable box). What happens is that at every boot the netmask
of my eth0 is reset, so I can't connect.
This is /etc/network/interfaces:
---8---
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto eth0
iface eth0
aí recebo a mensagem no boot:
route: netmask doesn't match route address
Ora, minhas máscaras continuam como dantes...o que posso fazer?
Valew!
--
Best regards,
Ayesha mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pois eh manda o seu ifconfig e route que estão configurados ;p
E quais foram os arquivos relacionados que vc alterou ?
Att
Marlos Sedrez
_
From: Ayesha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: sexta-feira, 1 de junho de 2007 14:13
To: Lista
Subject: Netmask error
Olá Lista,
Sei que
connected to eth1 is 192.168.1.100 255.
255.255.0 this configuration will conflict w/ the lan at home. when
i reconfigure the windblows machine to 192.168.2.100 255.255.254.
0, it arps but i cannot ping 192.168.2.1
i don't think the ip address is outside of the range of the netmask
but maybe i
of the netmask
but maybe i am incorrect?
suggestions?
After looking into this further, I am still perplexed. Here is the
topology I started w/:
my windows workstation
192.168.1.100/24 --| debian gwcorporate gw
|--192.168.1.1/24 -- 10.20.4.40/23
: WARNING: Netmask masks away part of the
specified IP in '192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0'
--
=
Nicolas Roudninski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
.
Merci d'avance.
/etc/cron.daily/logrotate:
2004/01/31 06:34:52| aclParseIpData: WARNING: Netmask masks away part of
the specified IP in '192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0'
Le réseau peut se décrire par 192.168.1.0/24 soit les 24 premiers bits de
cette adresse IP et on peut lui associer un masque de
If this is the wrong place to ask this question, just let me know.
I installed a script that configures ipchains for me, and it gives me some
error messages about an incorrect netmask, but the author of the script
told me the error messages are in error because his script groks the
netmask from
On 27-Sep-99 Pollywog wrote:
If this is the wrong place to ask this question, just let me know.
I installed a script that configures ipchains for me, and it gives me
some
error messages about an incorrect netmask, but the author of the script
told me the error messages are in error because
Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use that form of netmask?
I think it should but have never really known the rules for this.
I figure 32 bits is one host (255.255.255.255), 24 bits is
a class C (255.255.255.0); half
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use that form of netmask?
Yes, it's 25 bits, but it's not a /28, it's a /25 ofcourse ..
Mike.
--
Miquel van
On Mon, Dec 29, 1997 at 01:09:16PM +0100, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use that form of netmask?
Yes, it's 25
I am using 2.1.35 kernel and when I run 'pon' I receive this message:
---
Apr 25 01:44:20 arca kernel: ppp0 UP fl=0051 pa=9EA4B8C2/
brd= dst=82A4B8C2
Apr 25 01:44:20 arca kernel: pppd forgot to specify route netmask.
---
How do I set /etc/ppp/option to do it correct
53 matches
Mail list logo
