Messages in this thread | | | From | (Marc MERLIN) | Subject | Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal? | Date | 19 Jan 1997 00:32:39 -0800 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970114125505.2540A-100000@davids.wiznet.net>, David Schwartz <davids@wiznet.net> wrote: > >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.
We're getting somewhat off topic here, but if you have PtP connection, you're better off with a single host link, not a subnet. Some routing equipment symbolise a host link as /32 or 255.255.255.255
Marc -- Home page: http://www.efrei.fr/~merlin/ (browser friendly)
| |