[funsec] *groan*

[Blue Boar]

Who said it was an octet?

					BB

Krpata, Tyler wrote:
> Nor do they support octets in IPv4 addresses that are greater than 8
> bits...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blue Boar [mailto:BlueBoar at thievco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:35 PM
> To: rMslade at shaw.ca
> Cc: funsec at linuxbox.org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] *groan*
> 
> Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:
>> OK, I'm thinking it's a subnet mask, and the significance of 255 is
> easy to figure.  
>> 240 and 252 less so, but at least they are within range.  But 257?
> 
> I have encountered many people who don't believe in non-contiguous 
> subnet masks.  To be fair, a number of OSes don't support them anymore.
> 
> 					BB
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
>