nanog mailing list archives
Re: CIDR Utilization
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:47:41 -0500
The results appear to be missing 192.168.0.0/32. Is this intended behavior? 192.168.0.8/27 is not a valid CIDR — It actually represents an address within 192.168.0.0/27, so actually, rather than missing 192.168.0.0/32, one could argue that there are erroneous reports for 192.168.0.2/31, 192.168.0.4/30 being available. 192.168.0.64/26 encompasses 192.168.0.68/32 and 192.168.0.96/29, so there’s also an allocation conflict potential there. I thought I understood what you were looking for from your question, but your example creates significant confusion. Owen
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:51 PM, John Steve Nash <john.steve.nash () gmail com> wrote: Hi, I'm looking for any tool or a way I could specify a CIDR and the prefixes that are being used within this CIDR and the tool show me all free supernets. Example: 192.168.0.0/24 - CIDR Used subnet's: 192.168.0.1/32 192.168.0.8/27 192.168.0.64/26 192.168.0.68/32 192.168.0.96/29 Tool Result => Free Subnet's: 192.168.0.2/31 192.168.0.4/30 192.168.0.32/27 192.168.0.128/25 Regards, John
Current thread:
- Re: CIDR Utilization inetjunkmail (Nov 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: CIDR Utilization Owen DeLong (Nov 02)