why do you need to reserve the network add?

For an IP 192.168.0.1/24 the network add is 192.168.0.0 and the
broadcast is 192.168.0.255. Its apparent why you would reserve the
broadcast ip and not assign it to a device, but why do you do that for
the network base address (192.168.0.0) as well? thanks.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:13:08 -0700, yusuf wrote:

> For an IP 192.168.0.1/24 the network add is 192.168.0.0 and the broadcast
> is 192.168.0.255. Its apparent why you would reserve the broadcast ip and
> not assign it to a device, but why do you do that for the network base
> address (192.168.0.0) as well? thanks.

Hello

The base address of a subnet is (now) reserved for human beings.
It's a notation address representing all the hosts space on that network.
Hosts that may be present or hosts that will be there eventually...

Now, if you look at some very old TCP stack (Sun come to mind...)
This all zero address also meant a broadcast address...
Unless you have this kind of pre-Cambrian hardware and Jurassic software,
maybe you could actually use this address for a host.

But just to be on the safe side:

Reserve 192.168.0.0 : For humans...
Reserve 192.168.0.1 : Eventually for router interface.
Reserve 192.168.0.254 : if a hosts is at address .1 this is for the router.
Reserve 192.168.0.255 : For the broadcast address.


References of interests :

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc922.txt
(look at end of page 10)

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3330.txt


Hope it help...

what do you mean "for humans"? thanks.


noEMA wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:13:08 -0700, yusuf wrote:
>
> > For an IP 192.168.0.1/24 the network add is 192.168.0.0 and the broadcast
> > is 192.168.0.255. Its apparent why you would reserve the broadcast ip and
> > not assign it to a device, but why do you do that for the network base
> > address (192.168.0.0) as well? thanks.
>
> Hello
>
> The base address of a subnet is (now) reserved for human beings.
> It's a notation address representing all the hosts space on that network.
> Hosts that may be present or hosts that will be there eventually...
>
> Now, if you look at some very old TCP stack (Sun come to mind...)
> This all zero address also meant a broadcast address...
> Unless you have this kind of pre-Cambrian hardware and Jurassic software,
> maybe you could actually use this address for a host.
>
> But just to be on the safe side:
>
> Reserve 192.168.0.0 : For humans...
> Reserve 192.168.0.1 : Eventually for router interface.
> Reserve 192.168.0.254 : if a hosts is at address .1 this is for the router.
> Reserve 192.168.0.255 : For the broadcast address.
>
>
> References of interests :
>
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc922.txt
> (look at end of page 10)
>
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3330.txt
>
>
> Hope it help...

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:06:42 -0700, yusuf wrote:

> what do you mean "for humans"? thanks.

I'm wondering this too. I've checked my two kids thoroughly, and neither
came with an RJ45 socket. Are they wireless? I don't see them
connecting to my 802.11g transceiver.

My youngest is about 10 months old. Perhaps he's already out of date, and
the newer kids are coming with IP connectivity?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm wondering this too. I've checked my two kids thoroughly, and
> neither came with an RJ45 socket. Are they wireless? I don't see
> them connecting to my 802.11g transceiver.

You need a specialized media converter to convert from umbilical to
RJ45 or AUI. Sometimes it is offered as part of a package with the
subject's first body piercing.

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:22:02 +0000, Rick Jones wrote:

> Andrew Gideon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I'm wondering this too. I've checked my two kids thoroughly, and
>> neither came with an RJ45 socket. Are they wireless? I don't see them
>> connecting to my 802.11g transceiver.
>
> You need a specialized media converter to convert from umbilical to RJ45
> or AUI. Sometimes it is offered as part of a package with the subject's
> first body piercing.
>
> rick jones

LOL! It's rare to find occasion to laugh while discussing deep tech stuff...

Ok So here it goes...

IP address X.Y.0.0 is for human...
As in when you write on a piece of paper to describe a network.
As when you read on technical documentation.
As when you draw on a black(white)board...
Not in a configuration field on a screen...

Kids with a RJ-45 sockets...
I wonder about the required configuration utility...

kidconf [--kid-name] [--temper] [--sleep] [--etc...]


(Then again I am not so sure it's a Good Idea(tm) to be able to conf
kids...)


Hope it help

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:57:46 -0400, noEMA wrote:

> (Then again I am not so sure it's a Good Idea(tm) to be able to conf
> kids...)

Then you're not a parent.

Have you seen the movie "Robots" (which is currently playing on HBO)?
There's a scene shown where babies are "configurable" (they've a volume
control). No parent wouldn't immediately agree at the goodness of that
idea <laugh>.

- Andrew

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:11:42 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:57:46 -0400, noEMA wrote:
>
>> (Then again I am not so sure it's a Good Idea(tm) to be able to conf
>> kids...)
>
> Then you're not a parent.
>
> Have you seen the movie "Robots" (which is currently playing on HBO)?
> There's a scene shown where babies are "configurable" (they've a volume
> control). No parent wouldn't immediately agree at the goodness of that
> idea <laugh>.
>
> - Andrew

I was referring to the Bad Idea(tm) of actually choosing the sex of your
kids before they are born.(And getting rid of the babies of the "wrong"
sex)

Things like that and you end up with too many male, as the male child
(in some cultures ) is the name bearer of the family name, the
one who will receive the earth lot as an heir, and will keep the parents
in their advanced age...

But I must agree with you that a kid configuration utility in which you
could set the volume or even mute... Naaaa... )

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <(E-Mail Removed) >, noEMA wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:22:02 +0000, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>>Andrew Gideon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

]On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:06:42 -0700, yusuf wrote:
]
]> what do you mean "for humans"? thanks.

>>> I'm wondering this too. I've checked my two kids thoroughly, and
>>> neither came with an RJ45 socket. Are they wireless? I don't see
>>> them connecting to my 802.11g transceiver.
>>
>>You need a specialized media converter to convert from umbilical to
>>RJ45 or AUI. Sometimes it is offered as part of a package with the
>>subject's first body piercing.

You guys are BAD!!!

>LOL! It's rare to find occasion to laugh while discussing deep tech stuff...

Yeah, but I'm wondering what the poor O/P is making out of this.

>Ok So here it goes...

Good. The more recent posts in the thread 'Unusable IP Numbers' are also
very helpful, as one must remember that not all networks use a network
mask on a byte boundary.

>Kids with a RJ-45 sockets...
>I wonder about the required configuration utility...

Are you sure that isn't handled with /sbin/ifconfig, /sbin/route and so on?

>kidconf [--kid-name] [--temper] [--sleep] [--etc...]

Double dash options - must be Gnu rather than UNIX.

>(Then again I am not so sure it's a Good Idea(tm) to be able to conf
>kids...)

Configuring the network interface sometimes works, maybe even LOCALE. But
beyond that, all bets are off.

Old guy