Ferenc Tamas Gyurcsan wrote:
>
> >206.84.220.64/255.255.255.224.
> >It was explained to me that the net mask must be a bitstring
> of contiguous
> >'1's followed by a bitstring of contiguous '0's (starting at
> the MSB).
> >Using that rule, there's no way to construct an address/mask
> for the range
> >.65-.94.
>
> I'm still not sure about this, although I haven't tried it
> yet... Could you
> please give it a try and tell us about the result? I am
> really wondering about
> this because I read somewhere that it is possible.
Unfortunately, I can't right now as I don't have the appropriate hardware
available. If that changes I will try it out and let you know.
Jerry
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
