On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:10:54 -0800 (PST) Keith Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, David A. Bandel wrote:
>
> > With non-VLSM CIDR, we can't use /#. We will also get very large
> > headaches trying to calculate which IPs are found on a network with
> > absurd netmasks like 255.255.255.123. If you don't think this is
> > valid, you can try it on your network and see that it works just
> > fine with the following values:
> > network: 192.168.0.1
> > netmask: 255.255.255.123
> > broadcast: 192.168.0.133
> > hosts: 192.168.0.5, 192.168.0.129
> > yes, for this particular netmask, there are only 2 hosts, other
> > non-VLSM netmasks give varying numbers of hosts in different
> > patterns scattered about between the network and broadcast numbers.
>
>
> Wild, I've never seen non-contigous netmasks before. Is this legal
> per the ip specifiation, or just the result of the xor/nor (sorry
> don't remember the boolean operation involved between ip and netmask)
> operation?
This is 100% in accordance with the RFCs (not sure which one(s), perhaps
1518 and/or 1519). Been a while since I actually read them. And it's
AND for IP/Netmask.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
Nemesis Racing Team motto
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
