[K12OSN] Two subnets

[David Hopkins]

Shouldn't the subnets be 192.168.1.0/16 and 192.168.0.0/16?  isn't the mask
on just the last 16 bits?

Dave ...

On 1/24/07, Michael Blinn <mblinn at peopleplaces.org> wrote:
>
>  David Hopkins wrote:
>
> On 1/23/07, Michael Blinn <mblinn at peopleplaces.org> wrote:
> >
> > Jan 23 15:02:09 mail dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:09 mail dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 192.168.1.251 to
> > 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:10 mail dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.251 (192.168.1.254)
> > from 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:10 mail dhcpd: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.251 to
> > 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:15 mail dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:16 mail dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.253 to
> > 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:16 mail dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.0.253 (192.168.1.254)
> > from 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> > Jan 23 15:02:16 mail dhcpd: DHCPACK on 192.168.0.253 to
> > 00:10:5a:19:b3:fa via eth1
> >
> >
> A quick guess:  From the above it seems you have only 1 NIC for the
> subnet?  Why is eth1 responding on both subnets?  Terrel's setup was using 2
> NICs: one for each subnet.
>
>
> No, that's what is odd. There are two NICs for the two subnets. One is
> 192.168.0.0/24 and one is 192.168.1.0/24. DHCPD appears to be handing out
> addresses without accounting for the two nics/subnets. I can only assume
> it's due to a problem in my dhcpd.conf but I can't find the problem.
>  Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/attachments/20070124/57847437/attachment.htm>