From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Sep 3 14:47:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA27641 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA27633 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA01386; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:47:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:47:41 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is subnet #0 available for use? In-Reply-To: <199609031314.JAA01725@server.id.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Robert Shady wrote: I wrote: > > > You'll also not get gated to work properly with subnet "all zeros" or > > > subnet "all ones". IF you are interested in gated, that is. The way to > > > define subnets with the maximum number of hosts is to define them with > > > 4,8,16,32,64,64,32,16,8,4 hosts, and discard the 4 hosts at each end > > > (0,1,2,3,252,253,254,255) > > > > ? We use gated under FreeBSD and BSD/OS and have no problems with these > > subnets. We certainly do not discard any groups of 4 hosts. For > > As do we, 199.125.0.1 -> 199.125.0.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 works fine > going through our FreeBSD w/GateD & Cisco routers... OK, I'm prepared to be wrong. I do remember gated complaining to me once about this, but it was a while ago and may have been an earlier gated or my own misconfiguration. Danny