Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 19:24:57 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Jim Pazarena <paz@ccstores.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ifconfig alias setup Message-ID: <199908041824.TAA00498@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:54:43 PDT." <9908031054.aa27922@dick.ccstores.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:33:03 +0100 > >From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> > > >What I'd like to know is this: On SCO, if I configure two aliases > > > ip 4.2.3.1 netmask 0xffffff00 > > ip 4.2.3.2 netmask 0xffffff00 > > >and then connect() to 4.3.2.3, what source IP number does the packet > >get ? > > >I don't see how conflicting netmasks can be implemented.... SCO > >sounds a bit broken to me. Am I missing something ? > > No no, it is FreeBSD which is insisting on conflicting netmasks. SCO uses > the _same_ netmask. ??? FreeBSD says you must keep your interface netmasks unique. If you have 4.2.3.1/24 on an interface and want to assign 4.2.3.2 to something, the 4.2.3.2 *must* have a netmask of 0xffffffff - otherwise it conflicts. Try thinking about the question I asked - what source IP number should be assigned ? It's ambiguous. > That was the source of my question. Why does FreeBSD NOT PERMIT identical > netmasks on aliased IPs ? Because it makes the source address assignment ambiguous. > -- > Jim Pazarena mailto:paz@ccstores.com > http://www.qcislands.net/paz -- Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org> <http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908041824.TAA00498>