>>uh...well...not really.  for example, if i had 192.1.0.0/23 assigned
>>to my network, i could use 192.1.1.0 as a host address.  parts of the
>>internet might not be "happy" with it, but it's certainly legal.
>
>I guess I'm not being clear. For any given network & network mask (e.g.
>192.1.1.0/24), when the *host* part is *all* zero bits (i.e. 192.1.1.0),
>NetBSD generates a MAC-level broadcast for packets sent to that address. It
>also does this for the all ones host address (i.e. 192.1.1.255).

ah...well...yes.  that's true.  :)

>I have no problem with one IP address being reserved for broadcast. Two is
>excessive. We should fix this in our OS. I need to go re-read RFC-1122
>about this issue.

i don't think you can win there, unless you can get *everybody* to
reread it.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."