Subject: Re: how do I configure PPP to do this?
To: Paul Goyette , Brad Salai <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ronald Khoo <email@example.com>
Date: 10/24/1997 07:34:32
"Shyeah right, etc.." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> What's the number after the slash in those IP addresses, i.e.:
> 184.108.40.206/32.....220.127.116.11/32 .... 18.104.22.168/24
to which, Paul Goyette <email@example.com> replied:
> A new fangled short-hand notation to describe the netmask. /24 is the
> same as 255.255.255.0, /32 ==> 255.255.255.255.
(and others said much the same thing).
which is correct, of course. The one oddity is that a netmask of /32
has semantics that are provided be the IFF_POINTOPOINT interface flag
rather than the netmask field in the BSD (ie our :-) IP software. In
other words, /32 is weird.
[ It's also weird because /30 and less is legal; /32 is meaningful,
but different; but /30 is pretty much meaningless (because it's not
pointopoint, so it has a broadcast address, a network address, and no
host addresses :-) ]
Then Brad Salai <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> but isn't that a kind of no-no? aren't you supposed to use
> specific blocks for unregistered addresses:
[ network deleted
> where the 192.168.xxx.xxx addresses are known to be private?
That is *also* a common configuration. However, the original
question referred to a real routed network. In fact, here's
In Message-ID: <199710231221.IAA03773@jfwhome.funhouse.com> to
current-users@NetBSD.ORG, "John F. Woods" <email@example.com> wrote:
> I have what must be a fairly typical setup: a PPP link to my ISP which has
> assigned me a static IP address; a local class C network (a real allocation,
> not one of the nonrouted networks) for my home Ethernet (doesn't EVERYONE
> have Ethernet in their homes?).
Of course we do. And like you, I too have a real routed network at
home (although I have a /28 rather than a /24 like you). People with
dedicated connections tend to use a mixture of routed and unrouted
networks depending upon security considerations, but people with
dialups tend to use unrouted networks behind a NAT device or proxy
because ISPs tend to either not support routing networks behind
dialups, or charge quite a lot more for doing so (I know we do).
Ronald Khoo <firstname.lastname@example.org> Voice: +44 181 371 1000 Fax: +44 181 371 1150