On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 07:17 -0400, James Knott wrote: > Tom Patton wrote: > > I'm confused, then...fortunately I'm not also a network guru, so I have > > an excuse of sorts...;-) > > > > 254 would set the LSB of the byte to 0, wouldn't that allow checking > > of .0.x and .1.x ranges of address...? Wouldn't the mask for .2.x > > and .3.x be 255.255.253.0? > > > > Tom in NM > > > > > > > No, it wouldn't set that bit to 0. It moves that bit to the host side > of the address. It becomes clearer if you use the other notation, which > says how many bits are part of the network address. So, 255.255.254 = > /23 or 23 network bits and 9 host bits. Looking at the host side, the > address range runs from 0.0 to 1.255, with 0.0 being the network address > and 1.255, the broadcast. Add the host address to the network address > of 192.168.2+x.x to get the complete address range of 192.168.2.0 to > 192.168.3.255
Thanks, James. I think I wasn't confused, I was looking at it from the host side, and didn't catch in your first post that you had already added the network address...we were both seeing a total hosts of 0x01ff machines. I mistakenly took your first post to allow 0x03ff machines. I then further goofed by suggesting 0x03ff hosts as a mask of 255.255.253.0, when I meant 255.255.252.0. And I see I'm open to another comment, since I included the network and broadcast entities as machines...but you know what I meant. I guess I'm happier following the electrons through the gates than the packets through the switches...;-) Tom in NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
