>>>>> Paulo Santos <paulo.r.san...@sapo.pt> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> Paulo Santos<paulo.r.san...@sapo.pt> writes:
>>> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>> The last one should probably be as follows instead:
>> 192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
> Why is that?
> I tried it, though, but I get the same behaviour.
Apparently, my eye has slipped. There's no issue with this
IP/netmask pair. Rather, I see the issue with the other one:
>>> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
It's the convention to have the masked-out bits of a network IP
address to be zero. And my guess is that route(8) may fail with
the following if this convention isn't followed:
>>> route: netmask doesn't match route address
In this case:
62.48.163.64 00111110 00110000 10100011 01000000
255.224.0.0 11111111 11100000 00000000 00000000
So, it should've probably been as follows instead:
62.32.0.0/255.224.0.0
--
FSF associate member #7257
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/867h73maf4....@gray.siamics.net
