Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: tcp-ip@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: subnet addresses
Message-ID: <9449@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 17:15:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9449
Posted: Mon Jul 29 17:15:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 03:47:45 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 18

From: Jeff Mogul <mogul@Navajo>

My gut feeling is to side with Noel (zero subnet numbers are
illegal), but on reflection I am compelled to agree with
Jon (zero subnet numbers must be supported to preserve
compatibility.)  However, I suggest that we "strongly
recommend" against assigning new zero-numbered subnets.
I say this uneasily, because I can think of all sorts of
minor reasons why reserving zero is a good idea.

Note that on the issue of all-ones subnets (all bits in
the subnet field set), I think the need for broadcasting
support (whether or not all organizations intend to use it)
outweighs any compatibility argument -- especially as there
currently seem to be few hosts that would fall afoul of
a prohibition against all-ones subnet numbers.

-Jeff