Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!david From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Hosts whose IP numbers end in 0........ Message-ID: <7842@gollum.twg.com> Date: 26 Aug 90 21:34:06 GMT References: <1990Aug25.220042.29632@ircam.ircam.fr> <1990Aug26.171641.14037@cs.umn.edu> Reply-To: david@twg.com (David S. Herron) Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 27 In article <1990Aug26.171641.14037@cs.umn.edu> peiffer@cs.umn.edu (Tim Peiffer (The Net Guy)) writes: >In article <1990Aug25.220042.29632@ircam.ircam.fr> mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes: >>(nn != 0). It's legal for a machine, since the HOST part, nn.0, is definitely >>NOT zero. > > I disagree. The same set of documents known as RFC's also describe > subnetting practices. It lists nn.0 as host '0' of subnet 'nn'. > Therefore the host part is zero. BTW, do not forget the host > numbered 255. But .. But ... Subnet numbers don't have to be on 8 bit boundries. Sounds to me as if the routers in question are assuming them to *BE* on 8 bit boundries just like you are. Or the network in question might not be subnetted at all. It's not very correct for a router to assume such things for networks it isn't attached to. On the other hand if it does know the subnet mask and broadcast address for a subnet then it's fair for it to filter out broadcasts from that subnet. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <- <- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!