• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Need some advice - Perhaps some reading material

D

Dantoo

Golden Member
Hi Guys

I'm running a small network at home that consists of 2 win98se machines and 5 linux boxes cracking RC5. I run a dnet personal proxy on one of the Win98 machines that connects to the net by 56K dialup. The IP of the nic in the pproxy machine is fixed so that the linux "nodes" can find it easily and each node has a fixed IP address so that their own individual output stats can be tracked in a log.

I wanted to use ICS between the 2 Win Machines and came upon present dilemma.

I have setup the nics in the machines in the range 169.254.209.250 to 259 with a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0

ICS doesn't work in this range, can somebody tell me why?

I reconfigured the Win98 machine nics to 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.0.1 (I think), subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 and bang ICS worked like a charm (screwed up the RC5 boxes though as they had nowhere to go).

RC5 is much more important than browsing so back to the previous config.

A short synopsis on why it is so and reccomendations for future configuration would be well appreciated. Some concise reading on the subject would be cool and all.

Thanks
 
Some of your IP address are invalid

For your NICs use these addresses

192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.6 with a mask of 255.255.255.0

Certian IP addresses cannot be used because they represent broadcast addresses or network addresses. Without going into to much detail:

192.168.0.0 is a network address
192.168.0.255 is a broadcast address
No octet in an address can be greater than 255 (don't use 255 though)
169.254.209.250 to 259 = 256, 257, 258, 259 are invalid and depending on your mask 169.254.209.255 can be invalid as well
 
Thanks muchly.

Spidey I'm 😱 embarrassed 😱 about the 255-259 range I mentioned as I hadn't used them (fairly obvious really) and I do understand the basics of binary. It was 2.30 am 'ish when I put up the post.

It was a "ferinstance" as Jethro would have put it.🙂 Russ would remeber Jethro and Uncle Jed and Ellie-May. I recall Jethro was good at gazinters as well. You know 2 gazinter 6 times 3. 🙂

Russ - reading has commenced, man Amazon does well out of me!!! 🙂

BTW I found this - handy looking tool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top