From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Batstru Subject: Re: problems with alias Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:47:46 +0200 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: Reply-To: Batstru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_e70eba33cefa6ce158ba012abe8e1a82" Return-path: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org --b1_e70eba33cefa6ce158ba012abe8e1a82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable sorry..=20 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@lists.netfilter.org To: \"netfilter@lists.netfilter.org\" 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=20 point-to-point link, although those are normally specified using a full=20 32-bit all-1\'s netmask). Therefore if you have 82.186.92.90 on an interf= ace with a 255.255.255.254 netmask, the only machine it will be capable of=20 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=20 address ranges, onto the same phyical interface makes no sense to me. Regards, Antony. --=20 Anyone that\'s normal doesn\'t really achieve much. - Mark Blair, Australian rocket engineer Please reply to the list; please don\'t CC me.=20 -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f =20 Sponsor: I migliori vini a prezzi imbattibili e per ogni acquisto speciali omaggi= ! Clicca e prova la convenienza ora! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3D2624&d=3D20040= 716 --b1_e70eba33cefa6ce158ba012abe8e1a82 Content-Type: text/html; charset = "iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable sorry..
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 / 255.255.2= 55.248
eth1:2 --> 82.186.92.92 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:3 --> 8= 2.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.248
eth1:4 --> 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255= .248

marco

--------- Original Message --------
Da= : netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
To: "netfilter@lists.netfilter.org" &l= t;netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Oggetto: Re: problems with aliasData: 16/07/04 12:48


On Friday 16 July 2004 11:00 am, Batstru wrote:

> Hi all!
&= gt; I changed my server running redhat9 (kernel 2.4.x) with a new one wit= h
> fedora core 2 (kernel 2.6.x): each one has 2 ethernet interface= s, 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 / 255.255.255.25= 4
> eth1:2 --> 82.186.92.92 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:3 --&= gt; 82.186.92.93 / 255.255.255.254
> eth1:4 --> 82.186.92.93 / 2= 55.255.255.254

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 n= ormally 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 o= f the cable is 82.186.92.91.

Putting that address (.91), as well a= s several others which fall in different
address ranges, onto the sam= e phyical interface makes no sense to me.

Regards,

Antony.<= BR>
--
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
--b1_e70eba33cefa6ce158ba012abe8e1a82--