Paul Lussier wrote:
> >You can not have a subnet mask of .254, because this leaves you with
> >only two possible combinations in each range, the network address and
> >the broadcast address... no room for hosts. And obviously a subnet mask
> >of .255 is (almost) completely useless...
>
> Actuall
In a message dated: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:37:06 EST
Derek Martin said:
>You can not have a subnet mask of .254, because this leaves you with
>only two possible combinations in each range, the network address and
>the broadcast address... no room for hosts. And obviously a subnet mask
>of .255 is (
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
>
> are you referring to my scheme?
>
>
> >I'm still not sure about this, although I haven't tried it
> yet... Could you
> >please give it a try and tell us about the result? I am
> really wondering about
> >this because I read somewhere that it is possible.
>
I believe he w
Ferenc Tamas Gyurcsan wrote:
>
> >206.84.220.64/255.255.255.224.
> >It was explained to me that the net mask must be a bitstring
> of contiguous
> >'1's followed by a bitstring of contiguous '0's (starting at
> the MSB).
> >Using that rule, there's no way to construct an address/mask
> for the ran
Derek Martin wrote:
>
> Ferenc Tamas Gyurcsan wrote:
> >
> > >206.84.220.64/255.255.255.224.
Oops, I meant to also confirm that this is correct. What is needed is a
network with 30 hosts,
which is a .224 subnet mask as shown in my stupid little table below.
In this case, the network address is
Ferenc Tamas Gyurcsan wrote:
>
> >206.84.220.64/255.255.255.224.
> >It was explained to me that the net mask must be a bitstring of contiguous
> >'1's followed by a bitstring of contiguous '0's (starting at the MSB).
> >Using that rule, there's no way to construct an address/mask for the range
>
are you referring to my scheme?
>I'm still not sure about this, although I haven't tried it yet... Could you
>please give it a try and tell us about the result? I am really wondering about
>this because I read somewhere that it is possible.
>Ferenc
>
>
>206.84.220.64/255.255.255.224.
>It was explained to me that the net mask must be a bitstring of contiguous
>'1's followed by a bitstring of contiguous '0's (starting at the MSB).
>Using that rule, there's no way to construct an address/mask for the range
>.65-.94.
I'm still not sure about this,
y to construct an address/mask for the range
.65-.94.
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:06 PM
Subject: tcp wrappers and net/mask
>It's been a while since I&#
It's been a while since I've done net/mask stuff. I want tcp wrappers to
allow the following hosts:
206.84.220.65 - 206.84.220.94
65 -> 0100 0001
94 -> 0101 1110
95 -> 0101
160 -> 1010
206.84.220.160/255.255.255.95 ?
**
10 matches
Mail list logo
