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:
> > >
> >
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.
>
&g
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
> >
> &
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
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.
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, beca
> > 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 additi
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:
>>
>
> >>
> >> 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 too.
>
> If I know the network addr: 192.168.
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&#
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
> 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
>> calc
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.
&
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
so
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
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
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
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
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 c
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 defi
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 ha
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 availa
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
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 available, even no IPv6 is needed.
Thank you.
Corey H.
Hi *,
it's some time now (I can't say how long) that I have a "little" problem on my
Debian (it's an unstable box). What happens is that at every boot the netmask
of my eth0 is reset, so I can't connect.
This is /etc/network/interfaces:
---8<---
auto lo
iface
ge of the netmask
but maybe i am incorrect?
suggestions?
After looking into this further, I am still perplexed. Here is the
topology I started w/:
my windows workstation
192.168.1.100/24 --| debian gwcorporate gw
|--192.168.1.1/24 -- 10.20.4.
connected to eth1 is 192.168.1.100 255.
255.255.0 this configuration will conflict w/ the lan at home. when
i reconfigure the windblows machine to 192.168.2.100 255.255.254.
0, it arps but i cannot ping 192.168.2.1
i don't think the ip address is outside of the range of the netmask
but ma
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 mes
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 because his script "groks" the
ne
On Mon, Dec 29, 1997 at 01:09:16PM +0100, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
> >address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
>address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use that form of netmask?
Yes, it's 25 bits, but it's not a /28, it's a /25 o
Is a netmask of 255.255.255.128 (ie half a class C) 25 bits of
address, ie a /28 designator for tools that use that form of netmask?
I think it should but have never really known the rules for this.
I figure 32 bits is one host (255.255.255.255), 24 bits is
a class C (255.255.255.0); half of a
I am using 2.1.35 kernel and when I run 'pon' I receive this message:
---
Apr 25 01:44:20 arca kernel: ppp0 UP fl=0051 pa=9EA4B8C2/
brd= dst=82A4B8C2
Apr 25 01:44:20 arca kernel: pppd forgot to specify route netmask.
---
How do I set /etc/ppp/option to do
49 matches
Mail list logo
