Circa 2002-Feb-07 15:46:04 +0000 dixit "Miquel van Smoorenburg" :
: In article <20020207095759.A7591@???>,
: Jim Knoble <jmknoble@???> wrote:
: >Circa 2002-Feb-06 20:32:24 -0500 dixit Dave C.:
: >: Can none of them be aggregated?
: >:
: >: (Eg, if you have 1.2.3.4/24 and 1.2.3.5/24, you could at least make
: >: those into 1.2.3.4/25)
: >
: >1.2.3.4/24 is equivalent to 1.2.3.5/24. In fact, they're both
: >equivalent to 1.2.3.0/24.
:
: Really? So the IP address of this box is 195.64.65.64 ?
: I don't think so ;)
:
: $ ip addr ls dev eth0
: 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
: link/ether 00:e0:29:06:28:2c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
: inet 195.64.65.67/26 brd 195.64.65.127 scope global eth0
Now you're taking both my words and Dave C.'s out of context. The
original gentleman spoke of subnets. And the IPv4 subnet that your box
connected to could be described equally well as 195.64.65.64/26 or as
195.64.65.67/26.
I was simply correcting an error in Dave C.'s arithmetic. If you
prefer to mince words, i have a few good meat-pie recipes i can send.
--
jim knoble | jmknoble@??? |
http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/
