Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!bu-it!kwe From: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Hosts whose IP numbers end in 0........ Message-ID: <63256@bu.edu.bu.edu> Date: 27 Aug 90 16:32:47 GMT References: <7842@gollum.twg.com> <1990Aug25.220042.29632@ircam.ircam.fr> <1990Aug26.171641.14037@cs.umn.edu> Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Reply-To: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England) Organization: Boston University Lines: 37 I didn't see anybody cite chapter and verse of the Host Requirements RFC and considering the hours spent on that fine document, I think it would be a shame not to cite the official bible of the Internet (ok, one of the bibles...): ----------------------------- From RFC 1122 Sec 3.2.1.3 Addressing: RFC-791 Section 3.2; "IP addresses are not permitted to have the value 0 or -1 for any of the , , or fields (except in the special cases listed above). This implies that each of these fields will be at least two bits long." ------------------------------ The special cases are: (a) { 0, 0 } [only during initialization] (b) { 0, } [only during initialization] (c) { -1, -1 } [limited bcast; never source-addr] (d) { , -1 } [directed bcast; never source-addr] (e) { , , -1 } [directed bcast; never source-addr] (f) { , -1, -1 } [directed bcast; never source-addr] (g) { 127, } [loopback addr; never outside a host] I therefore conclude that a host part of zero is never a legal source address. So I think the petitioner should change the addresses on his hosts and not bother his router vendor. Isn't the Host Requirements RFC wonderful? This only took five minutes to research and that included checking the commentary in RFC 1127. :-) --Kent