Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048 (fwd)

To: Joe Pautler <pautler@grasshopper.cit.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048 (fwd)
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:01:31 -0500 (EST)
cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:50:11 EST." <199804011850.NAA08015@grasshopper.cit.buffalo.edu>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

> MegaZone wrote:
> ]
> ]Actually no, you don't lose the IPs when using VLSM.
> 
> Sure you do... you lose the broadcast address for each subnet.
> If you have a class B (/16), you lose address ???.???.255.255/16
> as a broadcast address.  If you break that class B into
> 255 class C's (/24), you lose a broadcast address for each subnet...
> in other words, 255 of them.  The same is true for VLSM's.

Indeed I believe the Max prevents you from using the first and last
addresses of the pool subnet.

But IMHO this is incorrect.

The first and last addresses are reserved for Ethernet. I don't see why,
when a subnet is used for something that is not an Ethernet or any
other kind of broadcast network, why they should then be reserved.

-Phil
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048 (fwd)

From: Joe Pautler <pautler@grasshopper.cit.buffalo.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Pool handling strategies (was: IP Addresses needed for 4048)
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Pool handling strategies (was: IP Addresses needed for 4048)
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048 (fwd)
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048 (fwd)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread