Colin Watson écrivait :
> It's possible to do that, sure, but if you ever try to connect your
> machine to a VPN where other people are using RFC 1918 addresses then
> you'll run into problems if you've been excessively greedy. It's better
> practice to use a more reasonably-sized subnet.
You are
> You may like to know that 10.0.0.0 is a class A network, so
> you can legally
> use a netmask of 255.0.0.0 and a broadcast of 10.255.255.255
> without any
Nope, 10.0.0.0 is not a class A network anymore! 10.0.0.0 is just a
single address out of for example 8.0.0.0/6. CIDR has been around since
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 12:25:55AM +0700, Jean Christophe ANDR?? wrote:
> Mike Egglestone ?crivait :
> > Basically, is it OK networking practise to setup my eth1 as follows?:
> > Network 10.0.0.0
> > IP address 10.0.0.1
> > Netmask 255.255.254
> > broadcast 10.0.1.255
>
> You may like to know tha
Hi,
Mike Egglestone écrivait :
> Basically, is it OK networking practise to setup my eth1 as follows?:
> Network 10.0.0.0
> IP address 10.0.0.1
> Netmask 255.255.254
> broadcast 10.0.1.255
You may like to know that 10.0.0.0 is a class A network, so you can legally
use a netmask of 255.0.
Hi,
I have debian woody acting as a simple firewall/ipmasq box.
eth0 public IP
eth1 private IP.
I'm serving out IP's on eth1 but would like to go beyond 256 nodes.
Currently, this is the setup for eth1:
Network 10.0.0.0
IP address 10.0.0.1
Netmask 255.255.255.0
broadcast 10.0.0.255
My dhcpd.con
5 matches
Mail list logo
