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:
> > >
> > > IP: 192.168.255.132
> > > broadcast: 192.168.25
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.
>
> Specifying a broadcast address does completely
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
> >
> > Isn't it?
>
> No. What's the net
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 counting,
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
Isn
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 netmask addr: 255.255.255.0
> >
> > Isn't it?
>
>
> No. What
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, because this is backwards.
> Norm
> > 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 necessary information: 8
addr
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 su
> 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 it?
>
> Not ne
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 8:24 PM Tom Reed wrote:
>
>
> > 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 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 it?
Not necessarily. PROB
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 that the broadcast address is the last us
> 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.
>
Hello
Sorry for my newbie question t
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.
>Normally you would sp
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
software wou
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 reasons
>
> 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 can
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 cou
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 th
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 ask
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 i
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 but isn't it normal for
> point-to-po
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
/2
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 it norma
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 a netmas
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 can avoid it but isn't it normal for
>
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 be
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 much more IPv4 space ava
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, even no IPv6 is
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 binary bits which add
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 be
40 matches
Mail list logo
