2 Nov
2001
2 Nov
'01
8:40 a.m.
--- Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 16:30, Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
I think it's useful when you have an ancient network where the broadcast
address uses 0-bits, rather than 1-bits - i.e., ip 192.168.1.1 with a
netmask of 192.168.1.0 and a broadcast address of 192.168.1.0 *not*
192.168.1.255. It's archaic, but allowed. Don't know if stuff <10 years
old will choke on that or not.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
What does 'broadcast' do (other than the
obvious)?
It's just a way of explicitly stating what the broadcast address for that
interface is. In every legitimate case I can think of, it should be
redundant if you provide the netmask (or the netmask is redundant if you
give the broadcast address).