RE: What are the correct NETMASKs for multiple PPPoE interfaces inaStaticIP block?

I hope this helps. :-)



On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Derek Cooke <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I believe that that your netmask's all stay the same for each connection.

"Same for each" is clear.

>  A netmask is set for segment of IP address.  In your example the segment
of
>  address is from 232 to 239 with the netmask of 29.

But, what's the right segment ... read on, please ...

>  So each of your PPPoE connections would all have the same netmask:

Depending on the time of day, I think I agree with you ;-) but ... my
confusion is a bit more fundamental (tough for me to even formulate
the 'right' question)

I guess I don't understand *why* a single IP, assigned to a single
intfc (alias or not) needs a /29 rather than a /32 mask.


### The only reason to apply a netmask of 29 is to create a segment in the
network where the intfc traffic can only talk to other intfc's within the
assigned space (232 to 239).  With the /32 mask all intfc's can talk to each
other from 1 to 255.  I believe in your case where the provider has
assigning you specific Addresses you are limited to that space provided for
security and traffic management. 

I can see if all the IPs across a block are handled by the same intfc,
then the 'signaling' needs to be block-aware -- and have a mask that
'covers' the block.

But in my case, where I want access to, and control of, traffic on a
per-IP-address basis, aren't /32's the right mask?

###  Again this depends on if you have access / control to the rest of the
intfs's (1 to 255) range or not.  If you only have access to the (232 to
239) range then I would haft to say that you can only use /29. 

And, yes, it's entirely possible that I'm looking at this all wrong to
begin with :-}

Geri :-)

_______________________________________________
Redhat-ppp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-ppp-list