Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Donald
Chuck what is the benefit of a broadcast on a p-to-p link. all stations are gonna answer anyway. i.e. the station on the other side of the p-to-p link. - Original Message - From: "Mcfadden, Chuck" To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: RE: /31 subnet. [7:27742

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Priscilla Oppenheimer
Yes, but why are all zeros and all ones in the host field disallowed? Because they seem to be broadcasts or refer to the entire subnet. On a point-to-point WAN, so what if you send to broadcast? There's only one station on the other end anyway! So IF devices support /31, you can use it. The on

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Donald
You gotta have the right code. - Original Message - From: "VoIP Guy" To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:44 AM Subject: Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742] > It doesn't work in Cisco routers. > > ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message > [EMAIL P

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Debbie Westall
I participated in the Cisco LAN Technologies seminar and the Cisco guy said it was recently added in their support. I have been searching around and so far have not found anything. Debbie Westall --- VoIP Guy wrote: > It doesn't work in Cisco routers. > > ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message > [

RE: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Mcfadden, Chuck
Sure, but then what are your network and broadcast addresses? ccie1ab -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742] Point to point connections, with a /30 you waste 50% of

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Donald
Network and broadcast address not needed on p-to-p links. - Original Message - From: "VoIP Guy" To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:32 AM Subject: Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742] > Maybe I'm missing something, but there are only 2 useable addresses in a > /30,

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
>It doesn't work in Cisco routers. Only in quite recent releases, and I can't tell you numbers offhand. Might need to be an ISP release train. > >""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Law of subnets is a tradeoff. Bigger subnets, have higher >> e

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
>Maybe I'm missing something, but there are only 2 useable addresses in a >/30, and only 2 interfaces participating in a point-to-point link, so how >are there 50% of the addresses wasted. > >Steve But there are 4 actual addresses in a /30. Two are not usable. All the addresses in a /31 are b

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
En riponse ` VoIP Guy : > It doesn't work in Cisco routers. Actually, Cisco supports this 3021... http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/12 2t2/ft31addr.htm My apologies, I didn't know this url before posting... Nicolas. > > ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in

RE: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Lange, Eric
subnet. [7:27742] It doesn't work in Cisco routers. ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Law of subnets is a tradeoff. Bigger subnets, have higher > efficiency, at the cost of bigger broadcast domains. Smalle

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread John Neiberger
It does work with Cisco routers, but it's a new feature in 12.2. Hmm...it may even be 12.2T, not 12.2, but it is definitely available now. >>> "VoIP Guy" 11/30/01 7:44:28 AM >>> It doesn't work in Cisco routers. ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Craig Columbus
Actually, it does work with the correct platform and IOS version. Here's the link. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ft31addr.htm Craig At 09:44 AM 11/30/2001 -0500, you wrote: >It doesn't work in Cisco routers. > >""Carroll Kong"" wrote in m

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
It doesn't work in Cisco routers. ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Law of subnets is a tradeoff. Bigger subnets, have higher > efficiency, at the cost of bigger broadcast domains. Smaller subnets have > abysmal efficiency, at the benefit of small

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Carroll Kong
Law of subnets is a tradeoff. Bigger subnets, have higher efficiency, at the cost of bigger broadcast domains. Smaller subnets have abysmal efficiency, at the benefit of smaller broadcast domains. /31 is a new RFC proposed rule which eliminates the loss of effiency of 50% to.. 0%.

RE: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread Lange, Eric
I think this can sum it up. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3021.html -Eric -Original Message- From: VoIP Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742] Maybe I'm missing something, but there are o

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread VoIP Guy
Maybe I'm missing something, but there are only 2 useable addresses in a /30, and only 2 interfaces participating in a point-to-point link, so how are there 50% of the addresses wasted. Steve ""MADMAN"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Point to point connections,

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-30 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sincerely do not know, when you find out let me know. To me using /31 is against all subnet rules, /31 gives you a subnet mask of 255.255.255.254, with two host addresses each, but these addresses are not usable. The most I have used and seen people use is /30 (255.255.255.252), for WAN interfac

Re: /31 subnet. [7:27742]

2001-11-29 Thread MADMAN
Point to point connections, with a /30 you waste 50% of the avaivalable addresses. Dave Nicolas FEVRIER wrote: > > Hi group, > > I'm puzzled by the use of /31 subnets... > Anybody can explain me the benefits of such a subnet on an interface ? > > Thanxx. > > Nicolas. -- David Madland Sr.