Re: [BProc] Re: broadcast in startup files (beoboot)

[Michal J. <mi...@ha...>]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:44:59AM -0400, Adrian wrote:
> 
> It's late or early , however you look at it, but let me see if I'm
> following along.  You may possibly have trouble with the second
> monte image , IF you elect to use non-standard ip-addressing for
> the nodes? 

Probably not in "simple" setups but it is hard to predict what needs
may arise and what will be effects of incorrect network parameters.

> Can I assume 'atypical' to be a deviation from the spec.

What specs and which "deviation"?  To be more concrete if you will
use an address starting with 10. then, does not matter what network
mask you specified, if ifconfig is not given an explicit mask it
will assume 10.255.255.255 for broadcast, i.e. /8 mask, which is
wrong and contravenes specs.  Old "Class A, Class B, Class C"
routing is obsolete and dead for many years.  ifconfig could be
"smarter" but it is not and the mask in question could be equally
well 24, or 25 or 22 for that matter, bits wide.  "Atypical" above
meant not something which violates standards but it was short for
"cases when ifconfig is screwing up without an explicit help".

> Can anyone possibly give me a legitimate reason for this?

For what?

> I have never needed atypical ip addressing.

In other words "I rely on guessing correctly which implicit
network parameters my interface configuration utility may use"?
I prefer some better defined behaviour which follows standards;
especially when this can be achieved quickly using regular
tools.

> Knowing which interface to "talk" to the nodes is a routing issue.

'beoserv' needs to know where to listen for RARP requests
before nodes will have their network interfaces configured.
No routing yet involved here.
 
   Michal