Bug 68746

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:27:16AM +0000, Dave Duchscher wrote:
> 
> >Number:         68746
> >Category:       docs
> >Synopsis:       Virtual hosts documentaion doesn't make clear issues with netmask on adding aliases.
[snip]
> >Description:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/configtuning-virtual-hosts.html
> 
> IMHO, this document does make clear the subtle issues with netmasks when
> setting up aliases.  As you know, aliases on the same network as the
> primary interface need a netmask of  255.255.255.255.  The first alias on
> a different network needs the correct netmask.  Additional aliases need to
> have 255.255.255.255.  IMHO, I think this document should cover these
> subtle issues with netmasks in more detail.

What do people think about the following patch?

G'luck,
Peter

Index: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/config/chapter.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/config/chapter.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.163
diff -u -r1.163 chapter.sgml
--- doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/config/chapter.sgml	5 Aug 2004 10:04:29 -0000	1.163
+++ doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/config/chapter.sgml	6 Aug 2004 12:29:18 -0000
@@ -1137,7 +1137,9 @@
       fortunately quite simple.  For a given interface, there must be
       one address which correctly represents the network's netmask.
       Any other addresses which fall within this network must have a
-      netmask of all <literal>1</literal>s.</para>
+      netmask of all <literal>1</literal>s (expressed as either
+      <literal>255.255.255.255</literal> or <literal>0xffffffff</literal>).
+      </para>
 
     <para>For example, consider the case where the
       <devicename>fxp0</devicename> interface is
@@ -1148,7 +1150,15 @@
       We want the system to appear at <hostid role="ipaddr">10.1.1.1</hostid>
       through <hostid role="ipaddr">10.1.1.5</hostid> and at
       <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.17</hostid> through
-      <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.20</hostid>.</para>
+      <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.20</hostid>.  As noted above, only the
+      first address in a given network range (in this case,
+      <hostid role="ipaddr">10.0.1.1</hostid> and
+      <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.17</hostid>) should have a real
+      netmask; all the rest (<hostid role="ipaddr">10.1.1.2</hostid>
+      through <hostid role="ipaddr">10.1.1.5</hostid> and
+      <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.18</hostid> through
+      <hostid role="ipaddr">202.0.75.20</hostid>) must be configured with a
+      netmask of <literal>255.255.255.255</literal>.</para>
 
     <para>The following entries configure the adapter correctly for
       this arrangement:</para>

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net    roam@cnsys.bg    roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
.siht ekil ti gnidaer eb d'uoy ,werbeH ni erew ecnetnes siht fI

Comment 2 Peter Pentchev 2004-08-09 13:00:58 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

I've committed a patch emphasizing the need for an all-ones netmask 
on "secondary" addresses.  Thanks for bringing this up!