Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Fri Aug 22 17:01:28 CDT 2003
On 22 Aug 2003 at 7:49, Foote, Chris wrote: > One minor correction Drew. > > If Steven's IP addresses are from the 192.168.0.x block with a subnet mask > of 255.255.255.0, 192.168.0.0 to 255 may well not be useable as this is > subnet zero. The lowest block of addresses will be 192.168.1.1 to > 192.168.1.254 > Still doesn't make sense. 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.0.255 shouldn't be used, but 192.158.0.1 to 192.168.0.254 are fine. -- Lexacorp Ltd http://www.lexacorp.com.pg Information Technology Consultancy, Software Development,System Support.