[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Brandon Holland" <brandon at cookssaw dot com>
 To:  "'Francisco Reyes'" <lists at natserv dot com>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Netmask format
 Date:  Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:20:20 -0600
Actually, IMO CIDR is easier than the "old way" of classes.

Now that I use this, I wonder how the old way could have ever made
sense.

Maybe Manuel could add a little helper text or something, but I think
using a crutch when you don't have to isn't really a smart idea.

Have him say that 16 is a 255.255.0.0 etc

Take a quick peak at subnetting on google and it'll give you everything
you need (and more).

-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Reyes [mailto:lists at natserv dot com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:11 PM
To: M0N0Wall firewall
Subject: [m0n0wall] Netmask format

Any thought on having the netmask for the WAN interface in a numeric
format like 255.255.255.248, besides the current format.
That would be a great help for those of us not familiar with subnetting
(ie those of us that are only part time admins and only do small and not
frequent setups).

I was lucky enough that I had easy access to the net so I found a TCP/IP
calculator to find out that I needed to have <IP>/29 in M0n0wall, but I
figure some people may be trying to set it up with nothing but a
printout
from the ISP in which case they simply will be stuck.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch