Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!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: <63380@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 90 14:01:36 GMT
References: <1990Aug28.074951.21126@ircam.ircam.fr> <63256@bu.edu.bu.edu> <9008272010.AA27718@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England)
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 33

In article <1990Aug28.074951.21126@ircam.ircam.fr>, 
mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes:
> Michael Patton indeed explains much better than I did what I intended
to say...
> We are NOT subnetting, the gateway filtering us out is at ANOTHER
site, out of
> (my) control.
> 
> Michael Fingerhut

	Mike's pretty good at that.

	I was wrong to assume anything about subnetting since you didn't say
anything about using subnets.  As others pointed out, those addresses would
cause legal problems if you ever were to subnet, but that is beside the point.
It does beg the question of how you avoid this problem with arbitrary subnet
length changes.  That can wait for more experience with variable subnet
routing protocols.  :-)

	It did occur to me that if a router were configured with subnetting
assumed (as others pointed out), then the router would probably need to take
precedence over the host's idea of subnetting (assuming the class B were
really subnetted), so in the long run, particularly for those who are planning
migrations from bridged to routed environments, these sorts of addresses are
to be avoided.  (Beside your point again, I know.)

	From the above, I get the impression that the router that is doing
the filtering is not part of your class B and, therefore, should not have any
idea of your subnetting or not.  I would be interested to find out more about
the source of this behaviour.  Is it a bug, or is the router vendor addressing
some other issue?

	--Kent