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
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.
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
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
netmask from
42 matches
Mail list logo
