From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Apr 16 08:45:21 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA03866
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [204.160.242.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03858
          for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harlie.bfd.com (bastion.bfd.com [204.160.242.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA09071; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@obiwan.psinet.net.au>
cc: Alec Kloss <alec@d2si.com>, Guy Helmer <ghelmer@cs.iastate.edu>,
        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Subnets of all 0's/all 1's
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970416184133.6511C-100000@obiwan.psinet.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970416084010.11154A-100000@harlie.bfd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



> each.  Now, I realize that my servers (had I more than one) are eating
> up a bunch of bandwith talking with each other, so I want to isolate
> them on their own network.  Say I take all the hosts in the range
> xxx.xxx.xxx.64 to xxx.xxx.xxx.95 and set their netmasks to be
> 255.255.255.240, 16 networks of 16 hosts each.  With proper
> configuration, I expect this would work with existing software.  

Shouldn't that be 16 networks of 14 hosts, as each network still has a
broadcast address and network address, or are you proposing doing away
with this as well?