On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:48:58PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:26 PM Christoph Brinkhaus > <c.brinkh...@t-online.de> wrote: > > [...] > > > But backing up... I suspect there's something wrong with your static > > > ip address assignment. The address is already taken, the netmask is > > > wrong, or the gateway is wrong. > > > > > > Looking back through this thread, I did not see where you showed your > > > static ip configuration. Maybe you should start with that. If it is > > > bad, then the APIPA is just a symptom of the [static ip address] > > > problem. > > > > This is the systemd-networkd configuration: > > > > [Match] > > Name=w* > > > > [Network] > > DHCP=no > > Address=192.168.0.62/24 > > Gateway=192.168.0.32 > > DNS=127.0.0.1 > > > > I have unbound as a DNS listening at localhost. But with > > DNS=192.168.0.32 the behaviour has been similar. > > > > I have not yet checked the address assignment using systemd-networkd. > > For doing so I have to reinstall some packages. > > I don't know what the Match section does. I am suspicious of it. > > 192.168.0.0 address block is /16, not /24.
No, typically it's 24. Traditionally these were 256 /24 nets; these days we have CIDR, so you can do whatever you like -- you only have to keep it consistent across your network. So /16 isn't wrong, but /24 isn't either, meaning in that case the range 192.168.0.1..192.168.0.254, depending on what you snip away at top or bottom, that is. > I'm in the US, and I use Verizon for my ISP. Verizon gadgets, like set > top boxes and media centers, use 192.168.0.x addresses. I never put > anything on 192.168.0.x. I start with 192.168.1.x. And on the Verizon > network, I've never seen a 192.168.0.x gateway. Gateways also go on > 192.168.1.x. So I'm a bit suspicious of the network assignments. No, this is perfectly fine. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
