I had heard that there was an RFC pertaining to using a /31 on
Point-to-Point links only (in which case there is no need for a
network/broadcast address). Has this been implemented in (Cisco) network
equipment yet? Is the RFC complete?
Anyone know? Priscilla? Howard?
Mike W.
"Gaz" wrote in
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.
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.
Behalf Of
Michael L. Williams
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
I had heard that there was an RFC pertaining to using a /31 on
Point-to-Point links only (in which case there is no need for a
network/broadcast address). Has this been
Cool thanks for the info!
Mike W.
- Original Message -
From: Brigitte Schoots
To: Michael L. Williams ;
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
> The RFC is 3021 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3021.txt
>
> It is implemented on Cisc
nes in the *networks* 192.168.0.0/24 and
192.168.255.0/24 - not subnets of 192.168.0.0/16
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Michael L. Williams
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
I ha
L PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following
networks:
198.62.0.0/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.1-14
and
192.168.0.240/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.241-254
This would be utilizing the "all-zeros" and "all-ones" subnets o
that
would be a valid test of subnet zero using VLSM.
- Original Message -
From: "R. Benjamin Kessler"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
> Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following
> networks:
&g
Gotcha... I'll try it and see how it goes...
Mike W.
- Original Message -
From: R. Benjamin Kessler
To: 'Michael L. Williams' ;
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
> Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the fo
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
>Mike W.
>
>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message
>ne
support this masking..
lawrence a sculark
LAWRENCE A SCULARK >From: "Kazan, Naim" >Reply-To: "Kazan, Naim" >To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] >Date: Fri,
28 Jun 2002 20:48:42 -0400 >Received: from [66.220.63
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.
I figured you would yell at me for saying "Class C." :-)
Priscilla
At 05:55 PM 6/30/02, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>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
It seems to have more to do with the nature of the code forced to interpret
it than any inherent properties of the number corresponding to the address
- Original Message -
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
To:
Sent: 30 June 2002 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
&g
""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.
At 8:03 PM -0400 6/30/02, Chuck wrote:
>""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
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 8:03 PM -0400 6/30/02, Chuck wrote:
> >""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
16 matches
Mail list logo
