[3996] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Subnetting, Arghh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Laird)
Sun Aug 11 06:17:51 1996
To: "Randall Shutt" <rshutt@extacy.ravenet.com>
cc: mogens@frontier.dk, Linux Net <linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Aug 1996 08:41:52 EDT."
<9608090841.ZM2966@extacy>
From: scott@laird.com (Scott Laird)
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 16:55:39 -0700
In message <9608090841.ZM2966@extacy>, "Randall Shutt" writes:
>
> You pretty much have a rigid set of choices. Either 2 nets of 64 usable,
>or 6 nets of 30 usuable. There are plenty beyond that, but I think the 30 is
>your case. Here is what the mappings would look like:
This really isn't true anymore. You can have 4 nets with 62 addresses
usable or 8 with 30 usable. No modern TCP/IP stack should have
problems with this. I have a class C network subnetted into 4 pieces,
with 3 of those in use (and the fourth soon to be in use), and it all
works fine. With the advent of CIDR, things like all-0 or all-1
subnet numbers shouldn't be a problem.
Scott
--
Scott Laird | "But this goes to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615"
scott@laird.com | - Nigel on his new 64-bit computer
