Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal?

David Schwartz (davids@wiznet.net)
Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:57:48 -0500 (EST)


On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Philip Blundell wrote:

> 255.255.255.254 is bogus though. You can't give _all_ your bits over to
> the network number. 255.255.255.240 is probably about the smallest
> network that's likely to be useful.

Not so. 255.255.255.252 is very useful for point-to-point links
such as T1s, T3s, PPP/SLIP connections, and ISDN connections. You have a
network number, a near end, a far end, and a broadcast address so a block
of four fits perfectly.

DS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books
were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------