Re: prefix len confusion

> you guys realize that "642" can't be part of an ipv4 address and
> "should cover" is best answered with ipcalc in that case it says the
> input is nonsense

my apologies.  i meant the >256 octets to signal that these data had
been manipulated with intent to anonymize.  i did not intent to give
heartburn to a fellow ipcalc user.

randy