Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:57:48 -0500 (EST) | | From | David Schwartz <> | | Subject | Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal? |
| |
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Philip Blundell wrote:
> 255.255.255.254 is bogus though. You can't give _all_ your bits over to > the network number. 255.255.255.240 is probably about the smallest > network that's likely to be useful.
Not so. 255.255.255.252 is very useful for point-to-point links such as T1s, T3s, PPP/SLIP connections, and ISDN connections. You have a network number, a near end, a far end, and a broadcast address so a block of four fits perfectly.
DS
------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |