""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 8:44 PM -0400 6/29/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > >At 12:49 PM 6/29/02, Michael L. Williams wrote: > >>I have successfully used both an "all-zeros" and an "all-ones" subnet on > >>Windows 9x. (192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.255.0/24) Works fine. > > > >Those aren't subnets, though, since it's class C. > > > >Priscilla > > Ah, Priscilla, Priscilla, Priscilla. And all along I respected you > because I thought your design thinking had no class. > > It would be accurate to say 192/8 is the traditional Class C space,
CL: 192/3? "Class C" space includes anything from 192/8 through 223/8 Am I constructing the CIDR block correctly? CL: also, in a situation where it matters, would an ISP advertsie 192/8, recognizing it contains defined private space? > with the assumption of a /24 mask. To have shorter masks in that > space does imply CIDR awareness, but there can still be significant > problems -- and carrier filtering issues -- merely because something > is in 192/8. > > Ironically, I once had a /22 in 192/8, which was generally subnetted > into /25's. There were a couple of sites where I could have used a > /24, but chose not to because any /24 tends to draw unneeded > attention of the Address Vigilantes. > > > > > > >>Mike W. > >> > >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47804&t=47670 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
