On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:49:20AM -0900, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Ed Carp wrote:
> > Did you deliberately overlook the point? It's not the routers that were my
> > point, it was the hosts that respond to such broadcasts.
> There is not a point here. The addresses *would* have been a
> network or broadcast address under old classful systems, and they
> might be now, or they might not be.
Not for a Class B.
I have a Class B. Address 130.205.8.255 is a perfectly legitimate
host address under both the Class system and the CIDR system unless
I apply a /24 mask or finer. What you say is very true for a Class C
under the Class system or for a /24 under CIDR.
I would expect a host on 130.205.16.0/20 with an address of
130.205.24.255 to behave perfectly well with that as a unicast address.
I would not expect any other host on the 130.205.16.0/20 network to respond
to that address. And the host address obviously does end in .255.
> *IF* you have a network, that *uses* these addresses and
> network and broadcast, then your *last* hop router should
> respond/block this traffic, if you network *DOES NOT* use them this
> way then they are valid addresses.
> ---
> As folks might have suspected, not much survives except roaches,
> and they don't carry large enough packets fast enough...
> --About the Internet and nuclear war.
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST