Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!prang.TEST.Vitalink.COM!nocsun.NOC.Vitalink.COM!riscit.NOC.Vitalink.COM!ejm
From: ejm@riscit.NOC.Vitalink.COM (Erik J. Murrey)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Subnet Number 0
Message-ID: <1423@nocsun.NOC.Vitalink.COM>
Date: 4 Mar 91 22:24:50 GMT
Sender: usenet@nocsun.NOC.Vitalink.COM
Reply-To: ejm@riscit.NOC.Vitalink.COM (Erik J. Murrey)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corporation
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: riscit.noc.vitalink.com


I see in RFC950 and the like that the subnet portion of the IP address
should not be zero, since it is reserved.  This seems to stem from the
concept of 0 meaning "this" network; presumably subnet "0" means
"this" subnet.  (i.e. if we have 128.1.0.0, with a 255.255.255.0 mask,
then an address of 128.1.0.x is illegal)

Is this still a real restriction on the address space?

---
Erik J. Murrey
Vitalink Communications NOC
ejm@NOC.Vitalink.COM	...!uunet!NOC.Vitalink.COM!ejm