owen at delong.com
Mon Nov 2 18:47:41 UTC 2015
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.
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:51 PM, John Steve Nash <john.steve.nash at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 192.168.0.0/24 - CIDR
> Used subnet's:
> Tool Result => Free Subnet's:
More information about the NANOG