From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 15 16:48:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA20943 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20933 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id SAA27283; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:49:54 -0500 Received: from p75.mixcom.com(198.137.186.25) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027275; Tue Apr 15 23:49:53 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970415184202.00b99b00@mixcom.com> X-Sender: sysop@mixcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:42:03 -0500 To: Guy Helmer From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Subnets of all 0's/all 1's Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 10:50 AM 4/15/97 -0500, Guy Helmer wrote: >I'm helping a FreeBSD system administrator whose class C network is >subnetted at 255.255.255.192. He would dearly like to use the subnet with >systems numbered x.x.x.1-63; I have held up RFC 950 to say "this isn't >allowed", but the RFC doesn't say specifically why this wouldn't work. > >Should FreeBSD be able to support a network with a subnet of all zeros or >all ones? If not, could someone give a short technical explanation as to >why? This is old and no longer applies. Modern equipment and OSs support .0 networks, but on Cisco it must be enabled. It works just fine. ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990