Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:29:59 -0700 From: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> To: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Resolver issues Message-ID: <20001207060923.3ABFC37B400@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 Dec 00 at 19:54, Cliff Sarginson wrote: >On Wednesday 06 December 2000 03:42, Duke Normandin wrote: >> On 5 Dec 00 at 12:56, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >> From: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> >> >> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:04:32 -0700 >> >> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >> >> >> >> On 4 Dec 00 at 16:51, Alexander Anderson wrote: >> >> Hi... >> >> >> >> >On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:17:41 PM or thereabouts, Crist J . Clark >> >> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> > $ ifconfig tun0 | grep "inet " >> >> >> > inet 64.229.84.85 --> 64.229.84.1 netmask 0xffffff00 >> >> >> >> >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> Well that doesn't look right. >> >> > >> >> >Hmm, what should it be? I'll try to experiment with my network settings >> >> >then. And here's my ``ppp.conf'' by the way; does anything look strange >> >> >here? >> >> >> >> I'm just a dumb newbie, so I might be totally wrong, but 64.229.84.85 >> >> looks an awful like a Class A address. If it is, the netmask s/b >> >> 255.0.0.0 or 0xff000000. Somebody horse-whip me if I'm out-to-lunch >> >> here.... >> > >> >There are no classfull addresses any more. 64 is being handed out in >> >the same chunks that other addresses have been handed out. Classless >> >addressing has been the norm in the Internet backbone for about 5 >> >years. That said, I don't know if 0xffffff00 is the correct netmask, >> >but I do know that 0xff000000 is not correct. >> >> Something told me to keep my yap shut... but noooo! I've been reading a >> couple of books (the suckers must out-of-date!) trying to learn about >> creating subnets from a single IP address. Of course the matter of >> netmasks and subnet-masks is pivotal to the readings. I thought I had the >> stuff aced ;( >I wouldn't worry, most of the literature is still a little schizoid about this >whole subject..telling you class A/B/C addresses were the "old" way, and then >mentioning them again and again. >The problem was the original addressing scheme was causing addresses to run >out basically. The class B ones were the criminals. So the whole thing >was divied up in a different way..as mentioned here. Thanks for taking some of the bite out of my embarrassment... Damn if I won't be walking with a cane and popping Geritol steady, before I get finished RTFMs and getting a handle on all of this ;,) I agree it's about as confusing as we in Canada having to deal with some folks who insist on using Fahrenheit still instead of Celsius (not that I prefer one over the other). Even configuring FBSD, we still use pre-CIDR notation. Oh well .... it's all education I suppose. Thanks. >> >> >The proper way to specify a network is prefix/length. >> >E.g. 127.0.0.1/32, 128.1.0.0/22, 64.229.84.1.0/23. >> >> Would you translate the above to the old way, so that I can see the logic. >> I read it as: >> >> address: 127.0.0.1 use 32 bits for the netmask >> address: 128.1.0.0 use 22 bits for the netmask (11111111 11111111 >> 11111100 00000000) or 0xfffffc00 -duke Calgary,Alberta, Canada 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?20001207060923.3ABFC37B400>