search

schoen / unicast-extensions

The IPv4 unicast extensions project - Making class-e (240/4), 0/8, 127/8, 225/8-232/8 generally usable - adding 419 million new IPs to the world, and fixing various other slightly broken pieces of the IPv4 world
150 stars 10 forks source link

In zeronet draft, typo on number of addresses #11

Closed runningdogx closed 4 years ago

runningdogx commented 4 years ago

https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.md#unicast-use-of-the-zero-node-address-in-each-network-or-subnet

In that section, in paragraph 2 where it says "network 0.0.0.0/24 only includes 254 usable addresses" shouldn't it read "...255 usable addresses"?

letoams commented 4 years ago

No because you cannot use 0.0.0.0/33

Sent from mobile device

On Jul 13, 2019, at 23:56, runningdogx notifications@github.com wrote:

https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.md#unicast-use-of-the-zero-node-address-in-each-network-or-subnet

In that section, in paragraph 2 where it says "network 0.0.0.0/24 only includes 254 usable addresses" shouldn't it read "...255 usable addresses"?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

letoams commented 4 years ago

/32

Sent from mobile device

On Jul 13, 2019, at 23:56, runningdogx notifications@github.com wrote:

https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.md#unicast-use-of-the-zero-node-address-in-each-network-or-subnet

In that section, in paragraph 2 where it says "network 0.0.0.0/24 only includes 254 usable addresses" shouldn't it read "...255 usable addresses"?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

runningdogx commented 4 years ago

I'm aware 0.0.0.0/32 is excluded. .1 to .255 is 255 addresses, not 254.

letoams commented 4 years ago

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, runningdogx wrote:

I'm aware 0.0.0.0/32 is excluded. .1 to .255 is 255 addresses, not 254.

255 would be the broadcast address (or one of the broadcasts if 0.0.0.0/24 is further subdiverted into smaller CIDRs) so it is not available as an "address". Perhaps if you divide it in /30's with p-t-p it could be a "real" address. But that seems rather academic. I wouldn't want to know what bugs the address 0.0.0.255 would see in the world :)

Paul

runningdogx commented 4 years ago

It doesn't have to be reserved (at least I didn't think so), and I thought the following words specifically indicated intent not to reserve it in that example.

Then the number of IPs is correct at 254, but the subsequent language should be "starting from 0.0.0.1 and ending at 0.0.0.254". Not "...ending at 0.0.0.255"

dtaht commented 4 years ago

well, it's 253, really.... thx for the correction!