On Monday 05 March 2012 9:30:01 am Robert Huff wrote:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
10.0.0.32/27
Anyone? Please?
Robert Huff
jcigar@dev ~ % ipcalc 10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
deaggregate 10.0.0.32 - 10.0.0.63
10.0.0.32/27
(net-mgmt/ipcalc)
On 03/05/2012 15:30, Robert Huff wrote:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
On Monday 05 March 2012 9:30:01 am Robert Huff wrote:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
10.0.0.32/27
Anyone? Please?
Robert Huff
On 05/03/2012 14:30, Robert Huff wrote:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
10.0.0.32/27
Anyone? Please?
Robert Huff
i cheated a bit but looks good
Yes.
cknipe@amnesiac ~ $ ipcalc 10.0.0.32/27
Address: 10.0.0.321010...001 0
Netmask: 255.255.255.224 = 27 ...111 0
Wildcard: 0.0.0.31 ...000 1
=
Network: 10.0.0.32/27
On Monday, March 05, 2012 at 14:30:01 UTC, roberth...@rcn.com confabulated:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
10.0.0.32/27
Anyone? Please?
I use the online IP calculator all the
On 03/05/12 09:30, Robert Huff wrote:
With my brain still on EBADSLEEP, I cannot decide if:
10.0.0.32-10.0.0.63
is correctly described by:
10.0.0.32/27
Anyone? Please?
Robert Huff
ipsc, from packages or ports, is very useful.
ipsc -gch 10.0.0.32/27
Network class:A
Network mask: 255.0.0.0
Network mask (hex): FF00
Network address: 10.0.0.32
Subnet bits: 19
Max subnets: 524288
Full subnet mask:
