From: Tom Martin (tig@wiltecinc.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 17:25:31 GMT-3
Nope. All of the addresses (with exception of 0.X.X.X and 255.X.X.X)
remain valid with a 32-bit subnet mask. I am testing on a loopback after
all... :)
-- Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Wygand [mailto:KWygand@customonline.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:12 PM
To: Tom Martin
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Quiz question of the day 20040702 (this one's for you
Jamie!)
Tom,
Consider the following requirement to put a spin on things: "There can
exist no subnet mask less than 24 bits".
Now what do you think? Does your answer change?
Ken
________________________________
From: Tom Martin [mailto:tig@wiltecinc.com]
Sent: Fri 7/2/2004 2:30 PM
To: Kenneth Wygand
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Quiz question of the day 20040702 (this one's for you
Jamie!)
On a Cisco router the following work (tested on a loopback interface).
I've also included a subnet mask since the "default" classful subnet
mask won't necessarily work.
1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0
1.0.0.0 255.255.255.255
1.255.255.0 255.0.0.0
1.0.0.255 255.0.0.0
10.255.255.255 248.0.0.0
These don't work for obvious reasons:
0.45.34.23
255.223.234.24
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Wygand
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:59 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Quiz question of the day 20040702 (this one's for you Jamie!)
Quiz question for the day:
How many of the following are possible valid, addressable IPv4
addresses:
1.1.1.1
0.45.34.23
1.0.0.0
1.255.255.0
1.0.0.255
255.223.234.24
10.255.255.255
Good luck to all!
Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:45 GMT-3