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

[Adrian T. <ad....@gm...>]

I use a /28 on mine, and have not experienced any problems. But I also 
specify my netmasks.
Leaving networking config to the OS means less changes are needed for
things like ipv6.
I do however, see your point and concern for correct configuration of the nodes.
 
Slightly different topic 2.6.8.1 looks to be fairly sane . I haven`t
been able to  use 2.6 until
 now, for a variety of non Bproc issues, mostly  the ips driver. 
2.6.8.1 built very clean for me yesterday. I`ll try it with  Bproc
today.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:41:17 -0600, Michal Jaegermann
<mi...@ha...> wrote:
> 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 routing is obsolete and dead for many years.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
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
> 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
> Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
> http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
> _______________________________________________
> BProc-users mailing list
> BPr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bproc-users
>