the correct subnet mask is the following...
eth0 --> 192.168.1.254 / 255.255.255.0
eth1 --> 82.186.92.90 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:1 --> 82.186.92.91 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:2 --> 82.186.92.92 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:3 --> 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:4 --> 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.248
marco
--------- Original Message --------
Da: netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: "netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oggetto: Re: problems with alias
Data: 16/07/04 12:48
On Friday 16 July 2004 11:00 am, Batstru wrote:
> Hi all!
> I changed my server running redhat9 (kernel 2.4.x) with a new one with
> fedora core 2 (kernel 2.6.x): each one has 2 ethernet interfaces, so I
> copy network configuration fron rh9 to fc2
>
> eth0 --> 192.168.1.254 / 255.255.255.0
> eth1 --> 82.186.92.90 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:1 --> 82.186.92.91 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:2 --> 82.186.92.92 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:3 --> 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:4 --> 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.254
These combinations of address/netmask make no sense to me.
The netmask 255.255.255.254 defines a 2-host subnet (basically, a
point-to-point link, although those are normally specified using a full
32-bit all-1's netmask). Therefore if you have 82.186.92.90 on an interface
with a 255.255.255.254 netmask, the only machine it will be capable of
talking to at the other end of the cable is 82.186.92.91.
Putting that address (.91), as well as several others which fall in different
address ranges, onto the same phyical interface makes no sense to me.
Regards,
Antony.
--
Anyone that's normal doesn't really achieve much.
- Mark Blair, Australian rocket engineer
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
----
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: clicca qui
Sponsor:
I migliori vini a prezzi imbattibili e per ogni acquisto speciali omaggi! Clicca e prova la convenienza ora!
Clicca qui
