Re: Is netmask 255.255.255.254 illigal?
Marc MERLIN (merlin@magic.metawire.com)
19 Jan 1997 00:32:39 -0800
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970114125505.2540A-100000@davids.wiznet.net>,
David Schwartz <davids@wiznet.net> wrote:
>
>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.
We're getting somewhat off topic here, but if you have PtP connection,
you're better off with a single host link, not a subnet.
Some routing equipment symbolise a host link as /32 or 255.255.255.255
Marc
--
Home page: http://www.efrei.fr/~merlin/ (browser friendly)