On Tue, 16 May 2000, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:38:08PM -0900, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
>
> > This is only true in classful routing, not classless. In any
> > case (old or new), the last hop router is the one that should be
> > dropping or not dropping the packet, *never* a router somewhere in the
> > middle.
>
> It's not even true then. It's only true in the case of classful
> routing on a class C network (255.255 and 0.0 on a class B and 255.255.255
> and 0.0.0 on a Class A) or in a /24 in classless routing (as defined by
> the end router - intermediate routers can NOT make that determination).
> In the case of /25 or smaller (larger number), 255 and 0 are bad but
> so are 128 and 127 as well as others (depending on netmask number).
In this particular case yes it *was* valid to assume that 0
and 255 were network/broadcast address in the old classful C space
(assumed /24). Even if you subnetted, 0 and 255 were still
network/broadcast.
Otherwise your are correct, just happens this case involves a
/23 in the old C space.
---
As folks might have suspected, not much survives except roaches,
and they don't carry large enough packets fast enough...
--About the Internet and nuclear war.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST