Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #181990 > unrolled thread

ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using netbook's wireless as access point)

Started byJoel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
First post2017-06-10 04:00 +0200
Last post2017-06-11 10:20 +0200
Articles 3 on this page of 23 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using  netbook's wireless as access point) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 04:00 +0200
    Re: ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using  netbook's wireless as access point) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 08:50 +0200
    Re: ifconfig network resolution Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2017-06-10 09:00 +0200
      Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:20 +0200
        Re: ifconfig network resolution Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2017-06-10 13:20 +0200
          Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 16:40 +0200
            Re: ifconfig network resolution Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-10 17:00 +0200
              Re: ifconfig network resolution Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 22:10 +0200
                Re: ifconfig network resolution Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 22:20 +0200
                  Re: ifconfig network resolution Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 07:10 +0200
                    Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 10:00 +0200
                  Re: ifconfig network resolution Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-06-13 14:30 +0200
            Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 23:00 +0200
              Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 01:00 +0200
                Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 01:50 +0200
                Re: ifconfig network resolution Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-06-11 04:20 +0200
                  Re: ifconfig network resolution Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 09:50 +0200
                  Re: ifconfig network resolution Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-06-13 12:30 +0200
                    Introductory iproute2 documentation (Was Re: ifconfig network  resolution) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-06-13 14:40 +0200
                      Re: Introductory iproute2 documentation (Was Re: ifconfig network  resolution) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-06-13 16:50 +0200
    Re: ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using  netbook's wireless as access point) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-11 10:00 +0200
      Re: ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using  netbook's wireless as access point) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 10:10 +0200
        Re: ifconfig network resolution (Re: pointers to material for using  netbook's wireless as access point) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-11 10:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#182054

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2017-06-11 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<tR5WV-2lr-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#181990
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:57:47 +0900
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:

> Experimenting from the command line, I find myself puzzled about the
> arguments for ifconfig.
> 
> Reading the manual, it would appear that the arguments for ifconfig
> should be something like this:
> 
>     ifconfig eth0 netmask 255.255.255.224 netmask 255.255.255.224
> broadcast 10.19.23.223 10.19.23.94
> 
> But the command returns with
> 
> SIOCSIFNETMASK: Can't allocate this address.
> SIOCSIFBRDADDR: Can't allocate this address.
> 
> If I repeat the command, it gives no errors, but the netmask and
> broadcast address end up full class A (255.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255).
> 
> Anyone have an idea what's happening?
> 

Could you humour me for a moment, and try the exercise with one of the
192.168... networks, with the same sized subnet?

I've seen this kind of behaviour a very long time ago, and I can't
really believe it is still happening, but...

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182055

FromJoel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-11 10:10 +0200
Message-ID<tR66B-2DE-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#182054
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:57:47 +0900
> Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Experimenting from the command line, I find myself puzzled about the
>> arguments for ifconfig.
>>
>> Reading the manual, it would appear that the arguments for ifconfig
>> should be something like this:
>>
>>     ifconfig eth0 netmask 255.255.255.224 netmask 255.255.255.224
>> broadcast 10.19.23.223 10.19.23.94
>>
>> But the command returns with
>>
>> SIOCSIFNETMASK: Can't allocate this address.
>> SIOCSIFBRDADDR: Can't allocate this address.
>>
>> If I repeat the command, it gives no errors, but the netmask and
>> broadcast address end up full class A (255.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255).
>>
>> Anyone have an idea what's happening?
>>
>
> Could you humour me for a moment, and try the exercise with one of the
> 192.168... networks, with the same sized subnet?
>
> I've seen this kind of behaviour a very long time ago, and I can't
> really believe it is still happening, but...

See the other sub-thread. But it does go to class C instead of the partial
class C when the device address comes at the end of the list.

--
Joel Rees

Trying to re-invent the entire industry all by myself:
http://defining-computers.blogspot.jp/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182057

FromJoe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date2017-06-11 10:20 +0200
Message-ID<tR6gh-2GL-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#182055
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:03:40 +0900
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> >
> > I've seen this kind of behaviour a very long time ago, and I can't
> > really believe it is still happening, but...  
> 
> See the other sub-thread. But it does go to class C instead of the
> partial class C when the device address comes at the end of the list.
> 

OK, not what I saw then. I was bitten by a bit of system software
somewhere that treated the 10. network as class A regardless of
netmask. I never got to the bottom of it, but I never again used 10. as
anything other than class A. It was quite a few years ago.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web