At 8:44 PM -0400 6/29/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >At 12:49 PM 6/29/02, Michael L. Williams wrote: >>I have successfully used both an "all-zeros" and an "all-ones" subnet on >>Windows 9x. (192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.255.0/24) Works fine. > >Those aren't subnets, though, since it's class C. > >Priscilla
Ah, Priscilla, Priscilla, Priscilla. And all along I respected you because I thought your design thinking had no class. It would be accurate to say 192/8 is the traditional Class C space, with the assumption of a /24 mask. To have shorter masks in that space does imply CIDR awareness, but there can still be significant problems -- and carrier filtering issues -- merely because something is in 192/8. Ironically, I once had a /22 in 192/8, which was generally subnetted into /25's. There were a couple of sites where I could have used a /24, but chose not to because any /24 tends to draw unneeded attention of the Address Vigilantes. > > >>Mike W. >> >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47799&t=47670 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
