Re: IFF_POINTOPOINT and netmasks

Miquel van Smoorenburg (miquels@cistron.nl)
25 May 1997 13:49:47 +0200

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970524215317.1926A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>,
Richard B. Johnson <root@analogic.com> wrote:
>On 24 May 1997, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>
>> The thing is - the default netmask should be 255.255.255.255, but if want
>> to override it, I think it should be possible. Right? At this moment the
>> kernel prevents me from doing it by resetting things I explicitly set.
>> Maybe Alexey Kuznetsov reads this, he should know..
>>
>> Mike.
>
>But... The default route is where everything that is masked by your
>network netmask should go! As such, a netmask on the default route
>doesn't make any sense. Isn't it just a place-holder so that the tools
>used to set the default route don't have to be special?

I didn't say "default route". I said "default netmask", and with that I
ment the netmask a ptp interface gets if you don't specify it.

>If you want to block a set of addresses from being accessed, you need
>to use a router like the 'Cisco' or Linux "firewall". Lets say I don't want
>anybody to access 123.321.321.321, I can't do this with a netmask without
>preventing access to 254 other nodes (0xff - 1). You would have to "mask"
>specific addresses. This is what routers can do for you.

I think you are talking about something entirely different.

Mike.

-- 
| Miquel van Smoorenburg |  "I need more space" "Well, why not move to Texas" |
| miquels@cistron.nl     |  "No, on my account, stupid." "Stupid? Uh-oh.."    |
|     PGP fingerprint: FE 66 52 4F CD 59 A5 36  7F 39 8B 20 F1 D6 74 02       |