"David O'Brien" wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:08:47PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> > 192.168.5 should be interpreted as 192.168.0.5 in host address context,
> > but as 192.168.5.0 in network address context. (Such network address
> > context is well seen in sentences such as "10/8", "19
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:08:47PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> 192.168.5 should be interpreted as 192.168.0.5 in host address context,
> but as 192.168.5.0 in network address context. (Such network address
> context is well seen in sentences such as "10/8", "192.168/16".)
Where is this docu
> 192.168.5 should be interpreted as 192.168.0.5 in host address context,
> but as 192.168.5.0 in network address context. (Such network address
> context is well seen in sentences such as "10/8", "192.168/16".)
The only problem I see with 10/8 is that when broken down into binary they
do not matc
Bikeshed time ! :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Valentin Nechayev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: /etc/exports: 192.168.5 = 192.168.0.5
> > > /var -alldirs -maproot=root: -networ
Its always been working in the correct way for stable and currently is right
now.
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leif Neland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:52 A
> > /var -alldirs -maproot=root: -network 192.168.5 -mask 255.255.255.0
> > showmount -e showed 192.168.5 was being interpreted as 192.168.0.5
> This is the correct interpretation.
> > Changing -network to 192.168.5.0 fixed it, naturally, but the 192.168.5
> > used to work.
> It was broken, then.
Leif Neland wrote:
>
> > > showmount -e showed 192.168.5 was being interpreted as 192.168.0.5
> >
> > This is the correct interpretation.
> >
> > >
> > > Changing -network to 192.168.5.0 fixed it, naturally, but the 192.168.5
> > > used to work.
> >
> > It was broken, then. :-)
> >
> So an unlist
> > showmount -e showed 192.168.5 was being interpreted as 192.168.0.5
>
> This is the correct interpretation.
>
> >
> > Changing -network to 192.168.5.0 fixed it, naturally, but the 192.168.5
> > used to work.
>
> It was broken, then. :-)
>
So an unlisted bug was fixed :-)
Leif
To Unsubscrib
-On [20010325 09:45], Leif Neland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>/var -alldirs -maproot=root: -network 192.168.5 -mask 255.255.255.0
>
>But after the portmapper change, I couldn't mount, was getting permission
>denied.
>
>showmount -e showed 192.168.5 was being interpreted as 192.168.0.5
>
>Changing
>From a pure logic point of view here's something that might help you
understand it
the 4 octets are broken down into binary and then combined without the
decimal point.
when whatever libraries are doing this, the first octec(192) is converted to
binary. Then there is probably some sort of if s
Leif Neland wrote:
>
> Bug or pilot error?
>
> My network is 192.168.5.0
>
> I used to have im my /etc/exports:
>
> /var -alldirs -maproot=root: -network 192.168.5 -mask 255.255.255.0
>
> But after the portmapper change, I couldn't mount, was getting permission
> denied.
>
> showmount -e sho
Leif Neland wrote:
> Bug or pilot error?
>
> My network is 192.168.5.0
>
> I used to have im my /etc/exports:
>
> /var -alldirs -maproot=root: -network 192.168.5 -mask 255.255.255.0
>
> But after the portmapper change, I couldn't mount, was getting permission
> denied.
>
> showmount -e showed
Bug or pilot error?
My network is 192.168.5.0
I used to have im my /etc/exports:
/var -alldirs -maproot=root: -network 192.168.5 -mask 255.255.255.0
But after the portmapper change, I couldn't mount, was getting permission
denied.
showmount -e showed 192.168.5 was being interpreted as 192.168
13 matches
Mail list logo
