Stephen Ryan writes:
Ooh, here's something interesting. I first tried a test with constants,
and got the warning: left shift count = width of type out of gcc.
Then I rewrote the thing to use a loop, and I got correct results out of
it. (This is all on an Athlon64X2.)
When you described
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 20:35 -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
Paul Lussier wrote:
Yes, more or less. Between you and Jason I've been able to come up
with exactly what I need. Thanks a lot for all your help. Why I
couldn't see this for myself is beyond me. Of course, this week has
been
Stephen Ryan wrote:
Can anyone think of a better way to blit an arbitrary number of bits
from 0 to 1?
Well, let's see
Taking advantage of the fact that all of the '1' bits are at the end of
the hostmask, you've actually almost gotten it already.
hostmask = (1 (32 - n)) - 1
netmask = ~
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 21:00 -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
Stephen Ryan wrote:
hostmask = (1 (32 - n)) - 1
netmask = ~ hostmask
Doh! That's so obvious, so obviously, I overlooked it. ;)
Well, yes, of course :-)
1 (32 - n) in binary is (n-1) '0' bits, a '1', then (32 - n) '0'
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 10.0.32/19 is an interesting beast. The systems which live on it
have 2 NICs, the primary eth0, which *always* have a 10.0.32/19
based address (currently restricted to 10.0.33/24 for some reason?!),
Paul Lussier wrote:
Yes, more or less. Between you and Jason I've been able to come up
with exactly what I need. Thanks a lot for all your help. Why I
couldn't see this for myself is beyond me. Of course, this week has
been full of me missing the details to the point where I somehow
managed
On 3/28/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's confusing.
Sure is! Wow, that's one wacky setup. :)
The 10.0.32/19 is an interesting beast. The systems which live on it
have 2 NICs, the primary eth0, which *always* have a 10.0.32/19
based address (currently restricted to
Python [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it help to convert to 32-bit integers?
I might. I'll try that.
I think I understand the arithmetic. I do not really understand what
you are trying to do.
That's okay, neither do I ;)
(If you really want the long convoluted discussion, I'll be glad
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tried
perl -we '$a = inet_addr(192.0.2.42);'
but it complained that inet_addr is not defined. I suspect there's a
module somewhere you need to pull in. Hopefully this is enough to get
you started.
You likely need to use -MSocket, and then
Paul Lussier wrote:
Python [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it help to convert to 32-bit integers?
I might. I'll try that.
It will definitely help. If you get the netmask and address both in
32-bit integers, then calculating the network and broadcast addresses is
very straightforward.
On 3/28/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really want the long convoluted discussion, I'll be glad to
post it, I just figured no on would care.
Well, everyone here knows *I* thrive on long, convoluted
discussions. I'm also curious if you're trying to route packets
through a
On 3/28/06, Jason Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, after looking back through the thread, I see Ben has already
pretty much answered the above. ;)
Repetition is the very soul of the net. -- from alt.config
Paul is using a network that is restricted to using a /19 netmask for
Jason Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the answer is that your IP addresses are limited
to the range of 10.0.32.0 to 10.0.63.255 with 10.0.0.0 being the
network address and 10.255.255.255 being the broadcast address, no?
Err, you've got the IP addresses wrong. It's
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well... okay... but it's the *why* that makes me wonder. :)
I hope it's something interesting, and not just that he's trying to
say that he's been assigned the addresses in the range 10.0.32.0/19 on
the 10.0.0.0/16 network. That would be *so* boring.
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 3/28/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really want the long convoluted discussion, I'll be glad to
post it, I just figured no on would care.
Well, everyone here knows *I* thrive on long, convoluted
discussions. I'm also curious if
Paul Lussier wrote:
Jason Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the answer is that your IP addresses are limited
to the range of 10.0.32.0 to 10.0.63.255 with 10.0.0.0 being the
network address and 10.255.255.255 being the broadcast address, no?
Err, you've got the IP
Paul Lussier wrote:
Errr, no, just the opposite actually. Trying to *prevent* routing
from a very existent router :)
Sounds to me like what you really need is a router with VLAN capability.
If I understand correctly, it sounds like you're trying to implement VLANs.
Your setup actually
Jason Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd suggest looking up how to configure VLANs on whatever you're
using for a router.--I know you mentioned a FreeBSD firewall
earlier.
You must have missed the part where I said we don't have a router,
we're migrating to a comletely new network, and,
Hi all,
I'm stumped. I've got a network address space of 10.0.32/19. How
ever, this space is carved up using a /16 netmask. In otherwords, the
/19 netmask was simply used to *allocate* the space from 10.0.32.0 to
10.0.63.255, but we actually *use* the space with a /16 netmask (yes,
this means
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 14:25 -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
Hi all,
I'm stumped. I've got a network address space of 10.0.32/19. How
ever, this space is carved up using a /16 netmask. In otherwords, the
/19 netmask was simply used to *allocate* the space from 10.0.32.0 to
10.0.63.255, but we
On 3/27/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm stumped. I've got a network address space of 10.0.32/19. How
ever, this space is carved up using a /16 netmask.
HUH?
Given an address, say 10.0.33.189, I want to get the network and
host portion of the address.
(1) Red Hat provides
21 matches
Mail list logo
