Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:49:11 +0000 (GMT) | From | Philip Blundell <> | Subject | Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal? |
| |
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Now come on! The poor guy had such a bad netmask, probably a typo that had > worked for a long time, but not with the newer kernels, so I tried to help > by telling him a netmask that would at least work. Since ".97" is higher > than 63, lower than 127, he could very well have 1 to 127 or 1 to 254 as
You don't _know_ that 97 doesn't include some subnet bits. Admittedly it's not likely, but you never know.
> a valid range of addresses. In this case, ".255.0" would be fine at least > until he found more out about his network typogaphy.
Perhaps, but you ought to at least tell him that he _does_ need to go and find out what it should really be.
p.
| |