[NTLUG:Discuss] (no subject)

[dearroz at comcast.net]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:24:44PM -0500, Wayne Walker wrote:
> In theory, you could use 255.255.255.200 and 192.168.1.64.
 :( on BSD, but not on linux.  linux's ifconfig command considers the
netmask 255.255.255.200 as invalid.

FreeBSD, however, properly allows it...

http://www.bybent.com/non-contiguous-netmask-bsd.png

Note that it even properly calculated the broadcast address... :)

> BUT, why do you need to refer to those machines as a subnet?  For
> firewall rules?
I'm still curious here...   

----------------
I can not respond for other routers, but if one attempts to set an IP address / subnet mask on a Cisco router, the commend will be rejected.

Dennis Rice
dennis at dearroz.net