>> for example, you can still ping the network number (ie, host number
>> zero for a given network and subnet) and still get responses from lots
>> of hosts.
>
>If you know what the network zero address it.  

true.

>Quick, whats the network 0 address for this host 24.1.65.208? If
>you guessed 24.1.65.0, thats wrong.

well...i woulda guessed 24.0.0.0, but that'd be just plain silly now,
wouldn't it?  hang on...lemme ask arin.  :)

@Home Network (NETBLK-SFBA-TCI-FRMT-1) SFBA-TCI-FRMT-1 24.1.64.0 - 24.1.79.255

hmm...cable modem?

>In the cases where you wanted to ping the local network, you could
>ping 255.255.255.255 just as well.  If you were off-net, most folks
>would say that allowing network pings is very irresponsible.  It
>allows for all sorts of DOS attacks (like smurfing).

nope.  that only gets me a response from my default route.  but most
people will agree that filtering network and broadcast pings at the
point of ingress to your network is a good idea.

>I'd rather see folks be able to trade a mis-feature for an extra
>address.  Especially in the day and age when ISP's are charging real
>money for every IP address.  Do you really want to pay for two IPs
>that your software won't let you use for host addresses?

that's not really the point is it.  most isp's that i've known charge
for either point-to-point connectivity (which you can leverage using
nat) or lan-to-lan connectivity (in exchange for an arm and a leg).
so in most cases, 2 would be about equal to 32 from the isp's point of
view.  same amount of setup...just different masks here and there.

-- 
|-----< "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."