Hi, On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:17:51PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I may be pedantic now (it' getting late!), but "ip subnet-zero" doesn't > > change the number of hosts you can cram into an unsubnetted /24 > > network, class C or otherwise, does it? As I understand it, it just > > pretty much right - it allows you to use some freaky /24's within your > available space - but its more important when using /23's and the > like where you can use .0 and .255 addresses within the space.
Actually, "ip subnet-zero" has nothing whatsoever to do with the addresses
available for hosts in a /23.
The difference is whether the router will permit you to configure things
like
ip address 193.31.7.1 255.255.255.240
or insist that you must skip the first ("zero") subnet in a non-VLSM
subnetted Class X network.
Whether or not you can use a /23 from Class C space (and subsequently,
.255 and .0 in the middle of it for hosts addressing) purely depends on
the age of your IOS. IOS up to 10.2 did not permit supernets, IOS 10.3 did.
In the century of CIDR, all this is completely meanlingless anecdotal
material from the last century.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpg9ZNK0Yy3Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
