RE: rarpd & netmask

2003-10-22 Thread Kenneth Goodwin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: rarpd & netmask > > > Greeting, > > can rarpd give a remove install client ip address with netmask? > > I seems have problem with netmask because the ip address is > class B and I > need a class C netmask. Is any way to fix

rarpd & netmask

2003-10-22 Thread Julie Xu
Greeting, can rarpd give a remove install client ip address with netmask? I seems have problem with netmask because the ip address is class B and I need a class C netmask. Is any way to fix this problem? Any comments will be appreciated Thanks in advance Julie Xu Data Communication Team

route add -net 192.168.23.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0

2003-03-22 Thread Michael Mansour
Hi, I use Red Hat 8.0. I wish to add the above line to my routing table using the GUI tools they provide, but when attempting to do this it just plainly does not work. The routing table I'd like is: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse I

Re: Netmask

2000-02-13 Thread Charles Galpin
he correct netmask in the subnet declaration to get it to serve from different ranges. I had noticed that you could pass an interface inon the command line to have it listen on only one interface which is why I was thinking you'd need to run 2 servers. But yes, this sounds perfect. The second nic is

Re: Netmask

2000-02-12 Thread Gordon Messmer
Charles Galpin wrote: > But where I thought it wouldn't work was the fact that I had them all > using dhcp. How would I be able to serve them Ips from two different > ranges? I think the amswer is to add another nic to the linux box, plug > the second network into it, and (somehow) setup two dhcpd

RE: Netmask

2000-02-12 Thread Chad W. Skinner
This is going to show my stupid newbieness, but regarding the below: > But where I thought it wouldn't work was the fact that I had them all > using dhcp. How would I be able to serve them Ips from two different > ranges? I think the amswer is to add another nic to the linux box, plug > the secon

Re: Netmask

2000-02-11 Thread Charles Galpin
I wanted to revive this thread because I had the need for this recently, but since I was a remote location (and I'm no network guy) I didn't have the confidence. There was also one nagging issue regarding dhcp for this setup that I wasn't sure about. So let me explain the problem scenario. I had

Re: Netmask

2000-02-09 Thread Scott Howard
Why break things up into smaller (restrict the) numbers of hosts? Sometimes you need to isolate computer groups for better network performance (have the computers that talk to each other the most off in a corner where they won't disturb anyone else), security (limit the damage that a vandal can

RE: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Russ Mellon
One thing before I start, you don't have to make the dhcpd range be the same size as the number of IP's avaliable on the subnet. The netmask and dhcpd range are independant. In fact, I leave out everything below a certain number for machines (servers) that always have the same IP add

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Isaiah Weiner
27;m going to sound very very ignorant, but, um, why? What is the > point in restricting a network to 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 hosts? What is wrong > with just the simple 255.255.255.0 netmask? > > Sendem my way, or to the list. I'll learn. > > Jason > > -- &

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Eric Cifreo
> I'm going to sound very very ignorant, but, um, why? What is the > point in restricting a network to 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 hosts? What is wrong > with just the simple 255.255.255.0 netmask? > > Sendem my way, or to the list. I'll learn. > > Jason > T

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Jason Hirsch
I'm going to sound very very ignorant, but, um, why? What is the point in restricting a network to 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 hosts? What is wrong with just the simple 255.255.255.0 netmask? Sendem my way, or to the list. I'll learn. Jason -- Jason Hirsch, ChemEng/Chemist

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread James Fidell
Quoting Bret Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > The stuff I have been reading keeps talking about getting out of the > habit of thinking in class a,b,c addresses. Not sure why other than the > usable address space in IP V4 was chunked up in too big a chunks and is > fast being used up, but that is i

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread James Fidell
Quoting Michael J. McGillick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'm setting up a NAT pool on a firewall. I think I understand now that > the netmask is independent of the starting address for the network it is > masking. Just to make sure my understanding is correct, if my network &g

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Bret Hughes
; I'm trying to understand how netmasks work. We want to set up a small > pool of IP Addresses, and the only thing we can do is specify the network > and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have 5 > usuable IP Addresses. What do I specify for the netmask

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread James Fidell
Quoting Steve Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > so what would be the netmask for the other subnets in > all three class. ABC The same. I was just using "class C" as a reference point for a familiar network size. It helps to forget all about classes, to be honest. An 8-host sub

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Steve Lee
so what would be the netmask for the other subnets in all three class. ABC On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, James Fidell wrote: > Quoting Michael J. McGillick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > When I put in a mask like that, it comes back as invalid. Maybe I'm not > > intepreting thin

Re: netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Bruce Bauer
128 => 1000 135 => 1111 The 1st 5 bits stay the same and so are part of your netmask 1000 => 248 Also netmask's are always a string of 1's followed by a string of 0's. Don't try mixing them up! > I have a block of 8 ip address. > from a class C.

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Eric Sisler
derstand now that >the netmask is independent of the starting address for the network it is >masking. Just to make sure my understanding is correct, if my network >starts at, say, 192.168.1.80, I can't very well have a netmask of anything >smaller than 80, right? This would mean I was t

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread David Brett
>I'm trying to understand how netmasks work. We want to set up a small > >pool of IP Addresses, and the only thing we can do is specify the network > >and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have 5 > >usuable IP Addresses. What do I specify for the

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Michael J. McGillick
Eric: I'm setting up a NAT pool on a firewall. I think I understand now that the netmask is independent of the starting address for the network it is masking. Just to make sure my understanding is correct, if my network starts at, say, 192.168.1.80, I can't very well have a netmask o

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Eric Sisler
Michael J. McGillick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I'm trying to understand how netmasks work. We want to set up a small >pool of IP Addresses, and the only thing we can do is specify the network >and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have 5 >usuable

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread James Fidell
; I make that number large, like 80, don;t I have to account for that fact? > IE. make my netmask something like 248 - 80 or somthing? No. The netmask only defines the size of the network, not "where" in the address space it is -- that's the job of the network address. If you

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Matt Housh
> and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have 5 > usuable IP Addresses. What do I specify for the netmask, and more > importantly, why? I understand about setting up a network range, when the > network is specified at 0, but this 80 is throwing off

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread James Fidell
Quoting Michael J. McGillick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'm trying to understand how netmasks work. We want to set up a small > pool of IP Addresses, and the only thing we can do is specify the network > and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Michael J. McGillick
that fact? IE. make my netmask something like 248 - 80 or somthing? - Mike On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Bruce Bauer wrote: > 85 won't work. > > If you make your network 192.168.1.80 and your netmask 255.255.255.248 > your broadcast address will be 192.168.1.87 and your usable addre

Re: Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Bruce Bauer
85 won't work. If you make your network 192.168.1.80 and your netmask 255.255.255.248 your broadcast address will be 192.168.1.87 and your usable addresses will be 81 - 86. As for why, try looking at these numbers in binary. > Afternoon: > > I'm trying to understand how

Netmask

2000-02-08 Thread Michael J. McGillick
Afternoon: I'm trying to understand how netmasks work. We want to set up a small pool of IP Addresses, and the only thing we can do is specify the network and the netmask. They want the pool to start at 192.168.1.85, and have 5 usuable IP Addresses. What do I specify for the netmask, and

Re: netmask

1999-11-16 Thread Steve Borho
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 05:02:37PM -0800, Steve Lee wrote: > I have a block of 8 ip address. > from a class C. for example. > > x.x.x.128 to 135 > > I make my network address x.x.x.128 > my broadcast address x.x.x.135 > but what do i set for my netmask? 255.255.255

netmask

1999-11-16 Thread Steve Lee
I have a block of 8 ip address. from a class C. for example. x.x.x.128 to 135 I make my network address x.x.x.128 my broadcast address x.x.x.135 but what do i set for my netmask? 255.255.255.??? how do i figure out the netmask for something like this? Thanks -- To unsubscribe