Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread Jeff Kell
"Lange, Eric" wrote: > > It's wasn't supported until 12.2(4)T. > > Check it out. This is from a 1750 running 12.2(4)T: > > > interface Loopback9 > > ip address 111.11.1.1 255.255.255.254 > > It works! For a loopback, so does a /32 :-) Jeff Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/f

Re: Subject: Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread Paul Werner
I would like to amplify Howard's comments below and doubly stress two words in his one line explanation, namely "controlled" and "violation". In terms of **Internet Gateways** (read routers) this is an acceptable practice for what the RFC describes in its title, "Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IP

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
>I read the RFC, so I guess it can be used. My bad. > >AM I correct in saying that one interface will be assigned the all zero >subnet as it's IP and the other will be assigned the broadcast IP address >for that subnet? > >Steve Yes. It's a controlled violation of that addressing rule. > > > >

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
t: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802] > > > Just tried it and the router dosen't even allow an interface to use a /31 > mask, even with ip subnet-zero enabled. > > > ""VoIP Guy&qu

RE: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread Lange, Eric
34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802] Just tried it and the router dosen't even allow an interface to use a /31 mask, even with ip subnet-zero enabled. ""VoIP Guy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PRO

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
Just tried it and the router dosen't even allow an interface to use a /31 mask, even with ip subnet-zero enabled. ""VoIP Guy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I read the RFC, so I guess it can be used. My bad. > > AM I correct in saying that one interface will b

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
I read the RFC, so I guess it can be used. My bad. AM I correct in saying that one interface will be assigned the all zero subnet as it's IP and the other will be assigned the broadcast IP address for that subnet? Steve ""VoIP Guy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
I know that, but the network and broadcast addresses are unusable. Thus the two good addresses for hosts. ""Craig Columbus"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > With a /30 you use 4 IP addresses (network, 2 node, 1 broadcast). You save > addresses with a /31. > Here'

Re: /31 subnet (now with info link) [7:27802]

2001-11-30 Thread Craig Columbus
With a /30 you use 4 IP addresses (network, 2 node, 1 broadcast). You save addresses with a /31. Here's a link with more info: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3021.txt?number=3021 Thanks, Craig At 08:32 AM 11/30/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Maybe I'm missing something, but there are only 2 useable addr