home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.protocols.tcp-ip:3944 comp.dcom.sys.cisco:1004
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!ucsbcsl!spectrum.CMC.COM!fennel.acc.com!art
- From: art@acc.com (Art Berggreen)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco
- Subject: Re: Multiple Subnets and Non-byte boundary netmasks
- Message-ID: <1992Jul31.201508.7128@acc.com>
- Date: 31 Jul 92 20:15:08 GMT
- References: <1992Jul23.224600.11081@polari> <1992Jul24.160634.5645@acc.com> <1992Jul31.170907.23562@nstn.ns.ca>
- Organization: ACC, Advanced Computer Communications
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Jul31.170907.23562@nstn.ns.ca> daniel@nstn.ns.ca (Daniel MacKay) writes:
- >In <1992Jul24.160634.5645@acc.com> art@acc.com (Art Berggreen) writes:
- >>The only problem I can think of right now with non octet aligned masks,
- >>is that some older host TCP/IP implementations would only take octet
- >>sized chuncks on netmasks.
- >
- >That's what everyone *says*. Does anyone have a list of these noncompliant
- >entities? or is it just one of those net.legends that will be with us
- >forever? I have worked with my share of devices in the past couple of
- >years, and a lot with 27 and 28 bit subnet masks, and haven't found
- >anything out of sorts.
-
- I do seem to recall an implementation that only allowed assigning netmasks
- of Class A, B or C formats (but don't remember what system).
-
- This could well be more of an urban legend that a real problem. I don't
- recall having any problems with netmasks in the past couple of years.
- But I still do occasionly see very limited implementations of TCP/IP.
-
- I'm willing to declare it a non issue unless someone can produce a system
- with the problem.
-
- Art
-