On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 07:58 PM, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>
[snip]
>> no this is incorrect. you just have to make sure that the aliased
>> IP&mask do not generate info which is already in the routing tab
> > > > > Everybody is saying use 255.255.255.255 for an alias. Noone is
giving
> > > > > reasons why.
> >
> >Exactly. I never got a good answer to this when I first stumbled upon
it,
> >and I still haven't. All I know is that this is the way it needs to be
done
> >in order for things to work pr
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> if you do care about this, you may want to restructure the data structure
> used to store/match interface addresses. At the moment it is a linear list,
> so the matching of incoming packets is probably Very Time Comsuming!
We have a patch (posted to this
> > > > Everybody is saying use 255.255.255.255 for an alias. Noone is giving
> > > > reasons why.
>
>Exactly. I never got a good answer to this when I first stumbled upon it,
>and I still haven't. All I know is that this is the way it needs to be done
>in order for things to work properly.
Ok
> Josef Karthauser wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > >
> > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
aliased
> > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias)
IP.
> > >
> > > Everybody is say
Josef Karthauser wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >
> > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
> >
> > Everybody is saying use 255.255
Alex,
> Can you be more specific please? Is it just a harmless warning
> message or a true error? In other words, will anything break if I use
> a.b.c.2/24 alias on the interface with the a.b.c.1/24 primary address?
technically i think it is a real error to use a /24 alias, but i
am not 10
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
> No you will be able to bind normaly to a.b.c.1, but i have had the
> problems where if i specify anything to bind a.b.c.2 and it has bound on
> all ip's aliased on the computer.
Tobias,
I know that I can bind to any (and all) of the 1000+
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > the source of confusion is just the fact that when you ifconfig an
> > interface, you really give two distinct pieces of information:
> > 1. an ip address that the machine recognises as its own
> > 2. a
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> the source of confusion is just the fact that when you ifconfig an
> interface, you really give two distinct pieces of information:
> 1. an ip address that the machine recognises as its own
> 2. an address for a subnet connected to that interface.
> Wit
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [ Matt Emmerton wrote: ]
> > > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
> aliased
> > > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless o
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > >
> > > > [ Matt Emmerton wrote: ]
> > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
aliased
> > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias)
IP.
>
> no this is incorrect.
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >
> > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
no this is incorrect. you just have to make sure that the aliased
> I don't understand this either. To my mind it's a bug if it doesn't
> work with the full netmask for an IP alias address.
you're right. submit patch.
randy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>
> >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
>
> Everybody is saying use 255.255.255.255 for an alias. Noone is giving
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 01:06 27-2-01 +0100, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Drew J. Weaver wrote:
> >
> > > Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely made up)
> > > 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to
yeah and thats the reason for the 'or' in that sentance...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jonathan Graehl wrote:
> > do 'netmask 255.255.255.255' instead or 'netmask 0x' since this is
> > an alias... for some reason otherwise services may not bind to the ip
> > correctly
>
> Why would this be? T
At 22:49 26-2-01 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > > do 'netmask 255.255.255.255' instead or 'netmask 0x' since this
>is
> > > an alias... for some reason otherwise services may not bind to the ip
> > > correctly
> >
> > Why would this be? The two are numerically equivalent.
He's sayin
I think that Roger meant something like:
"... instead, or ..." <-- "," added.
He's saying they are the same.
FWIW, there used to be an "IP alias" tutorial (not the "pedantic ppp"
tutorial) referenced from the freebsd web site, but it's disappeared.
The former went into a bit of detail o
> > do 'netmask 255.255.255.255' instead or 'netmask 0x' since this
is
> > an alias... for some reason otherwise services may not bind to the ip
> > correctly
>
> Why would this be? The two are numerically equivalent.
Yes, but you're missing the point.
The point is that you need to use
> do 'netmask 255.255.255.255' instead or 'netmask 0x' since this is
> an alias... for some reason otherwise services may not bind to the ip
> correctly
Why would this be? The two are numerically equivalent.
-Jon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-
At 01:06 27-2-01 +0100, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Drew J. Weaver wrote:
>
> > Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely made up)
> > 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to it on 209.51.193.32-64
> > (or whatever, this is an example) woul
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Drew J. Weaver wrote:
> Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely made up)
> 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to it on 209.51.193.32-64
> (or whatever, this is an example) would this alias line still be valid for
> that? I've never do
At 10:27 26-2-01 -0500, you wrote:
Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely
made up) 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to it on
209.51.193.32-64 (or whatever, this is an example) would this alias line
still be valid for that? I've never done a server wher
Title: Quick question about IP aliasing
Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely made up) 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to it on 209.51.193.32-64 (or whatever, this is an example) would this alias line still be valid for that? I've never d
25 matches
Mail list logo
