| |||||||||||||
Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 releasedSendmail X.0.0.0.0 releasedPosted Nov 1, 2005 23:25 UTC (Tue) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768)In reply to: Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released by xorbe Parent article: Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released
No need to broadcast that.
(Log in to post comments)
Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released Posted Nov 2, 2005 4:57 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] Derpends on whether it's the address or the netmask. The broadcast addressis always the highest in the netmask's range, which would make it 255.255.255.255. (It has to be IPv4, as the separators in IPv6 are :'s and X isn't a valid character in it anyway.)
Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released Posted Nov 2, 2005 6:05 UTC (Wed) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link] Yes, in fact I believe the all-zeroes host portion as broadcast was a mistaken BSDism that was soon corrected, but had already poisoned the usage enough that every since you haven't been able to rely on it for a host. It's annoying when you've got a /28 or /29 block to lose that ip as well as the broadcast and one for the gateway/router.
Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released Posted Nov 2, 2005 8:27 UTC (Wed) by gavino (guest, #16214) [Link] The sooner we all use IPv6, the sooner this point will be moot.
/me laments the slow introduction of IPv6, whilst cursing the sorry hack that is IPv4 port address translation (aka port-based multiplexing, masquerading, IP overloading..) Regular (static/1:1) NAT still has its good uses though...
Sendmail X.0.0.0.0 released Posted Nov 3, 2005 10:07 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] The sooner we all use IPv6, the sooner this point will be moot.Will we get Sendmail X::0 then ?
|
|||||||||||||