Milton Calnek wrote:
>
>
> Michael Simpson wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Should the IP address supplied be the actual address for eth0 rather
>> than the network address?
>>
>> ie 192.168.0.1/24 rather than 192.168.0.0/24
>
> I dunno...
> what does 192.168.0.1/24 mean?
this one is not always accepted.
> what does 192.168.0.0/24 mean?
this is the correct one.
>
> The way I see it, they both mean 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255.
yes, but the first version is not accepted by all software. because no
IP will satisfy
bin(ip) & 0xffffff00 = bin(192.168.0.1)
anyway, I have a samba setup with
interfaces = 192.168.10.0/24
and it works. so this is not the source of the problem.