On 2/7/08, Milton Calnek <milton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Simpson wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Should the IP address supplied be the actual address for eth0 rather
> > than the network address?
> >
> > ie 192.168.0.1/24 rather than 192.168.0.0/24
>
> I dunno...
> what does 192.168.0.1/24 mean?
> what does 192.168.0.0/24 mean?
>
> The way I see it, they both mean 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255.
>
from rfc 919
If the use of "all ones" in a field of an IP address means
"broadcast", using "all zeros" could be viewed as meaning
"unspecified". There is probably no reason for such addresses to
appear anywhere but as the source address of an ICMP Information
Request datagram. However, as a notational convention, we refer to
networks (as opposed to hosts) by using addresses with zero fields.
For example, 36.0.0.0 means "network number 36" while 36.255.255.255
means "all hosts on network number 36".
iirc smb.con is expecting the actual ip address of the interface in
the "interfaces=" field rather than the "network address"
The /24 is just the CIDR way of expressing the netmask therefore
192.168.0.0/24 to me means 192.168.0.0-255 because the "network"
address is being used whereas 192.168.0.1/24 means the more specific
"host" address 192.168.0.1.255.255.255.0
I could be wrong (often am) but it might be worth trying it out to see
if it gets rid of the error pertaining to subnet creation.
mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
