Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Calculation when adding proxy ip/network is wrong

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.0-RC Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    4 Posts 2 Posters 2.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • G
      grazman
      last edited by

      This is something I noticed a long time ago with 2.0 builds…

      Adding a virtual IP as proxy/arp calculates the hosts "incorrectly.

      4.5.6.72/29

      This should be using 6 ip's not 5. They should start at 73-78, instead it starts at 72. Why does it use the subnet address, what happened to the last usable host in the range, and why?

      It seems to me this should not function this way. Why does it?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by

        It's not wrong. When you specify a /29, you're telling it to proxy ARP on the entire /29 range of IPs. If you have a network and broadcast address, then you won't want to PARP the entire /29 (though it may not matter if you do), so don't configure it that way. That specifies a CIDR range, not a range exclusive of network and broadcast addresses. A .72/29 shows and proxy ARPs .72 through .79 as it should.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • G
          grazman
          last edited by

          @cmb:

          It's not wrong. When you specify a /29, you're telling it to proxy ARP on the entire /29 range of IPs. If you have a network and broadcast address, then you won't want to PARP the entire /29 (though it may not matter if you do), so don't configure it that way. That specifies a CIDR range, not a range exclusive of network and broadcast addresses. A .72/29 shows and proxy ARPs .72 through .79 as it should.

          I misspoke and meant virtual IP. I thought the behavior should be ti list each IP separately, as I recall it haveing done that before. With yesterday's build it is not doing that, so adding the virtual IP's individually seems to work fine.

          Thanks.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            cmb
            last edited by

            @grazman:

            I misspoke and meant virtual IP. I thought the behavior should be ti list each IP separately, as I recall it haveing done that before. With yesterday's build it is not doing that, so adding the virtual IP's individually seems to work fine.

            It did, and still does on today's snapshot. Where are you seeing that it doesn't?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • First post
              Last post
            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.