On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:33 -0500, "Tony Tuso"
<tonytuso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>I remember seeing a question regarding the 169 addresses, but can't
remember
>the exact question.
>The answers included two 169 addresses:
>169.254.0.0
>169.245.0.1
>
>Are both these addresses invalid?
>
Yes, they are (invalid).
168.254.0.0 is a network address, so not a valid host address.
169.245.0.1 is just an internet address, issued to a company in
Fairfax, VA.
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
|
