Re: why broadcast on *.0 (network) addresses ?

Martijn van Oosterhout (v3100411@student.anu.edu.au)
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:24:48 +0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: DAVID BALAZIC: "2.2.x README missing info ?"
Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that w"
Maybe in reply to: Harald Koenig: "why broadcast on *.0 (network) addresses ?"
Next in thread: Leo Mauro: "Re: why broadcast on *.0 (network) addresses ?"

>.0 is the "old" broadcast address, used by e.g. older SunOS hosts. It's not
>supposed to be used any more, but for backward compatibility .0 is often
>accepted as a synonym for .255.

Forgive me if I'm ignorant, but shouldn't the kernel send a broadcast
only if the IP matches the configured broadcast address?

Or is the configured broadcast address ignored, or is .0 always
a broadcast?

Awaiting enlightenment,

Martijn van Oosterhout
Australia

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: DAVID BALAZIC: "2.2.x README missing info ?"
Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that w"
Maybe in reply to: Harald Koenig: "why broadcast on *.0 (network) addresses ?"
Next in thread: Leo Mauro: "Re: why broadcast on *.0 (network) addresses ?"