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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!ucbvax!tcp-ip From: tcp-ip@ucbvax.ARPA Newsgroups: fa.tcp-ip Subject: Re: subnet addresses Message-ID: <9470@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 23:39:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9470 Posted: Mon Jul 29 23:39:02 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 06:32:05 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 18 From: Jeff Mogul I think there are as many sites with subnet FF in use as there are with 0. I don't see that migrating hosts out of the potential subnet 0 before turning subnetting on is a big deal. I count 6 hosts in the NIC host table with (for address A.B.C.D) any of A, B, C, or D = 255. One is MITRE, the other 5 are all at LBL. Of course, there may be hosts not listed with the NIC, and there may be collisions on other addresses if somebody uses subnet fields which are not 8 bits wide, but there are clearly far more hosts with all 0s than all 1s where subnet fields might go. I'd vote with you for changing the host addresses (it isn't THAT big a deal) to allow banning of all 0s subnet numbers, but I suspect we'd lose the vote. -Jeff