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)?
* Stan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.10.08 10:44:45-0400]:
> Heres what I have IP 170.85.109.24 netmask 255.255.255.128 I put in
> 170.85.109.0 for a netwokr number, but this must be wrong based upon what
> the broadcast adress of the interface becomes. It should be 170.85.109.127,
> but instead
Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:44:45AM -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
> > Heres what I have IP 170.85.109.24 netmask 255.255.255.128 I put in
> > 170.85.109.0 for a netwokr number, but this must be wrong based upon what
> > the broadcast adress of the interface becomes. It should b
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:44:45AM -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
> Heres what I have IP 170.85.109.24 netmask 255.255.255.128 I put in
> 170.85.109.0 for a netwokr number, but this must be wrong based upon what
> the broadcast adress of the interface becomes. It should be 170.85.109.127,
> but instead i
Hmmm,
Your network number should be correct, and you're right about what the
netmask *should* be. Apparantly an installation script got horribly
confused about netblocks.
Try hand-editing your network file with the correct information.
--Rich
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> I upgraded a Deb
I upgraded a Debian machien this weeknd, and now it wants a bit more
information in the /etc/network files. It wants "network number" I'm
confused by this.
Heres what I have IP 170.85.109.24 netmask 255.255.255.128 I put in
170.85.109.0 for a netwokr number, but this must be wrong
6 matches
Mail list logo
