RE: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-12 Thread Matt Churchyard
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:49:35PM + I heard the voice of Matt > Churchyard, and lo! it spake thus: > > > On 11 Feb 2015, at 17:38, Warren Block wrote: > > > ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.1/24 > > > > Yeah I've been using that format in rc.conf for years. Quicker to type > > and looks tidy.

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:49:35PM + I heard the voice of Matt Churchyard, and lo! it spake thus: > > On 11 Feb 2015, at 17:38, Warren Block wrote: > > ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.1/24 > > Yeah I've been using that format in rc.conf for years. Quicker to > type and looks tidy. Ditto. Though

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Matt Churchyard
> On 11 Feb 2015, at 17:38, Warren Block wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Matt Churchyard wrote: >> >> Just been helping someone on the forums who appears to have configured their >> network interface incorrectly. It looks like they've assigned 250.250.250.0 >> as the netmask. >> I've tried a

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Warren Block
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Matt Churchyard wrote: Just been helping someone on the forums who appears to have configured their network interface incorrectly. It looks like they've assigned 250.250.250.0 as the netmask. I've tried assigning this netmask on a 10.1 machine and ifconfig happily accepts

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Jim Thompson
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> On 2/11/15 5:55 PM, Matt Churchyard wrote: >> >> I appreciate that it might be 'valid' as a binary mask, but I'm struggling >> to find any documentation anywhere that actually suggests that it's valid as >> a network configuration.

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Eric van Gyzen
On 02/11/2015 05:51, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 2/11/15 5:55 PM, Matt Churchyard wrote: > >> >> Are there actually valid use cases for these types of network? > yes. > I've had networks that were the first and last quarter of a /24, and > the middle two quarters were separate nets. > > Sure, it ma

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/11/15 5:55 PM, Matt Churchyard wrote: I appreciate that it might be 'valid' as a binary mask, but I'm struggling to find any documentation anywhere that actually suggests that it's valid as a network configuration. The entire modern CIDR notation, and all the routing system & hardware bu

RE: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Matt Churchyard
On 2015-2-11, at 09:59, Matt Churchyard wrote: >> Just been helping someone on the forums who appears to have configured their >> network interface incorrectly. It looks like they've assigned 250.250.250.0 >> as the netmask. > that's not invalid. The netmask is a mask and not a prefix like in I

Re: Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Eggert, Lars
On 2015-2-11, at 09:59, Matt Churchyard wrote: > Just been helping someone on the forums who appears to have configured their > network interface incorrectly. It looks like they've assigned 250.250.250.0 > as the netmask. that's not invalid. The netmask is a mask and not a prefix like in IPv6.

Invalid subnet masks

2015-02-11 Thread Matt Churchyard
Hello, Just been helping someone on the forums who appears to have configured their network interface incorrectly. It looks like they've assigned 250.250.250.0 as the netmask. I've tried assigning this netmask on a 10.1 machine and ifconfig happily accepts it. Is there any reason why FreeBSD a