On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Rich Puhek wrote: > True, that would be the correct netmask if he was in the old 170.85.0.0 > class B, but doesn't the network address take precedence in determining > the netmask (as far as the configuration scripts go, not as far as IP > addressing goes)?
Although 170.85.0.0 may be more convenient for humans (and thus more "correct"), any address is technically usable for any network that contains it - (170.85.0.0 & 255.255.0.0) = (170.85.109.24 & 255.255.0.0) = (170.85.109.0 & 255.255.0.0), where "&" means "bitwise AND". Even if you assume the network address has already been normalized by having already done the AND, 170.85.109.0 could still be any size network up to a Class C (or /24 in CIDR terminology). Without being given either the netmask or the broadcast address, you can't definitively deduce either one. Which brings up the question of why the config script didn't ask for a netmask... > Sounds like Stan did enter in his network address > correctly, so it's strange that his broadcast got set to the default > "Class B" mask. Probably just a dumb config script. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Mr. Slippery
