Shaul Karl wrote:
Am I right that in theory one can construct a 2 interfaces Ethernet network with a netmask of 255.255.255.254?
No.
Are there reasons to skip such an Ethernet network and keep the
smallest network with a minimum of 4 hosts and a netmask of 255.255.255.252?
You need a network address and a broadcast address for each network, so the minimal sized network is 4 IPs.
Gilad.
It's not exactly true if you control both hosts on the network (at least on linux). You can configure it using point-to-point addresses:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /sbin/ifconfig eth0.100 10.100.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 pointopoint 10.100.0.2
(and ofcourse with the appropriate command on the other host)
then you'll get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /sbin/ip addr ls | grep 0.10
4: eth0.100: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
inet 10.100.0.1 peer 10.100.0.2/32 brd 10.255.255.255 scope global eth0.100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /sbin/ip route ls | grep 0.10 10.100.0.2 dev eth0.100 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ ping -c 1 10.100.0.2 PING 10.100.0.2 (10.100.0.2) from 10.100.0.1 : 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.100.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.231 ms
Actually the IP addresses of both sides don't even need to have any relation to one another...
-- Eran Mann Senior Software Engineer MRV International Tel: 972-4-9936297 Fax: 972-4-9890430 www.mrv.com
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
