From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 30 09:40:04 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811B61065673
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51378FC0A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:40:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o8U9e2Ki095171;
	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:40:02 +1000 (EST)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:40:02 +1000 (EST)
From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To: Carmel <carmel_ny@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100930165112.D62022@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
Message-ID: <20100930193436.N62022@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References: <20100929205531.76F991065713@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20100930165112.D62022@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IPFW firewall and TCP ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:40:04 -0000

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Ian Smith wrote:

 > countries are long gone.  For some scientific (and policy) rationale of 
 > the increasingly fragmented nature of new allocations down to /22 (ie 64 
 > IP addresses) have a look at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

Oops; a /22 allocation is of course 4 times a /24, ~1024 addresses.

Ian