From nobody@FreeBSD.org  Sun Jun  3 15:24:48 2001
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FD237B403
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Sun,  3 Jun 2001 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f53MOib78759;
	Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nobody)
Message-Id: <200106032224.f53MOib78759@freefall.freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: tundra@tundraware.com
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: xl driver defaults to incorrect broadcast address
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         27862
>Category:       kern
>Synopsis:       xl driver defaults to incorrect broadcast address
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    dougb
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Jun 03 15:30:01 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:    Sun Jun 3 23:30:32 PDT 2001
>Last-Modified:  Mon Jun  4 00:20:02 PDT 2001
>Originator:     Tim Daneliuk
>Release:        4.3
>Organization:
TundraWare Inc.
>Environment:
FreeBSD eskimo.tundraware.com 4.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE #0: Sat Jun  2 19:50:27 CDT 2001     toor@eskimo.tundraware.com:/usr/s
rc/sys/compile/ESKIMO-4.3  i386
>Description:
Running a 3c509C in a non-routable address space being set up in
rc.conf as follows:

ifconfig_xl1="inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xfffff00"

This setup defaults to a broadcast address of 240.168.0.255 which
I believe is bogus - it should be 192.168.0.255 - this seems to
confuse programs like 'samba' that need broadcasting to work
correctly.
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:
Use the following line in rc.conf:

ifconfig_xl1="inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xfffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255"
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->wpaul 
Responsible-Changed-By: dougb 
Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Jun 3 20:21:28 PDT 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  

Over to the NIC guru 

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=27862 

From: Tony Fleisher <takhus@takhus.mind.net>
To: tundra@tundraware.com
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/27862: xl driver defaults to incorrect broadcast address
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:00:39 -0700 (PDT)

 Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote:
 >>Description:
 >Running a 3c509C in a non-routable address space being set up in
 >rc.conf as follows:
 >
 >ifconfig_xl1="inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xfffff00"
                                           ^^^^^^^^^
 I believe that this should be 0xffffff00.
 (Note: 8 characters after the '0x')
 With the input you have given (which is bogus), 
 the results seem to be appropriate (though probably not meaningful).
 
 Please try correcting this and report back on the results.
 
 -Tony.
 
 
 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: dougb 
State-Changed-When: Sun Jun 3 23:30:32 PDT 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  

I too hastily assigned this PR. The originator has a typo, the netmask 
should be 0xffffff00, or more easily understood by humans, 255.255.255.0. 



Responsible-Changed-From-To: wpaul->dougb 
Responsible-Changed-By: dougb 
Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Jun 3 23:30:32 PDT 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  

I erred in A) not reading the PR more carefully, and B) bothering wpaul with it. 
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=27862 

From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com>
To: Tony Fleisher <takhus@takhus.mind.net>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/27862: xl driver defaults to incorrect broadcast address
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:19:45 -0500

 Tony Fleisher wrote:
 > 
 > Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote:
 > >>Description:
 > >Running a 3c509C in a non-routable address space being set up in
 > >rc.conf as follows:
 > >
 > >ifconfig_xl1="inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xfffff00"
 >                                           ^^^^^^^^^
 > I believe that this should be 0xffffff00.
 > (Note: 8 characters after the '0x')
 > With the input you have given (which is bogus),
 > the results seem to be appropriate (though probably not meaningful).
 > 
 > Please try correcting this and report back on the results.
 > 
 > -Tony.
 
 Many apologies (I am such a moron) ... old age and long hours are my
 only excuse.  The correct mask, does, of course work properly.
 
 <Slinking off in embarassment...>
 -- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tim Daneliuk
 tundra@tundraware.com
>Unformatted:
