Old Tired Question: 'Not configured to listen on any interfaces'

[Matthew Causey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/25/11 9:40 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 25 February 2011 09:24:03 -0800 Matthew Causey
> <matt.causey at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> What are the potential negative side effects of using:
>>
>> subnet 10.26.16.55 netmask 255.255.255.255 { } (local server ip/32)
>>
>> vs
>>
>> subnet 10.26.16.0 netmask 255.255.252.0 { } (the /22 where server lives)
> 
> I believe all leases issued have to be enclosed one of the subnets, so
> I suspect the former will lead to no leases being issued.
> 
Sure.  But in the case where I do _not_ want to issue leases for
10.26.16.0/22, that would be OK, right?

In the case that I _do_ want to issue leases on 10.26.16.0/22, it looks
like I can have both 10.26.16.0/22 and 10.26.16.55/32 - and I can issue
leases from there.

Thoughts?

- --
Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNZ/SeAAoJEDdM1ngAf7fy/v0H/i1DWuwbaCHj28+E4kP2kC1/
tzZdZWxx4kN8ruzgNeiOjIJy40qK3pTMzudPGZvx1o+E01xPuecXJ5UVGqouPu09
T3B34xN31FZXhfagSW1rW8GzuByWQ0YpnPn+9fHUGKhviZ9cTRzsT+oCgPcAQV93
fJvWqkBJEJuACfzqV06997Qx3T3rPyV3n5KgbkCGN/y75MOv0g6xVqIKPWiaSiBW
AJnAg9SYVwW0j8p/3BUYS9T0z7VHefXC2o5K+Jn40zoMak5cbagIllGV4rpyAkBl
GQCScTKK+KqceUK0U7FFQPJjNV73UPwonAkEwgU1VbDj8dcFXoHDR/GNu2L+/SY=
=Fa+I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----