From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 31 10:56:01 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA26617 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.Clark.Net (mail.clark.net [168.143.0.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA26607 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 10:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clark.net (root@clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by mail.Clark.Net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA09855 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 13:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from clark.net (markus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clark.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA01924 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 13:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199605311755.NAA01924@clark.net> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No subnets with N=0? Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 13:55:53 -0400 From: Mark Plummer Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk < said: > Ascend recently told me that I can't have Class C > subnets with the net address set to 0 or all 1s. what they were likely trying to say is that the subnet portion of the address cannot be all 0 or all 1. ie if your calss C is 192.168.1.x and your subnet is 255.255.255.224 (3bits), the addresses 192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.30 and 192.168.1.225 through 192.168.1.254 would be illegal. this is a matter of dispute (at least it was when i asked on comp.protocols.tcpip a few months back). some say it's illegal and some say it's not depending on which rfcs you read and how you read them. in any event ascend is saying it's illegal and for their equipment, it is just like for my hp (half protocol or hewlett packard depending on who you ask) stuff. markus -- Mark Plummer, markus@clark.net, +1 410 796 1272