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. Owen > On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:51 PM, John Steve Nash <john.steve.n...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > 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 > supernets. > > Example: > > 192.168.0.0/24 - CIDR > > Used subnet's: > > 192.168.0.1/32 > 192.168.0.8/27 > 192.168.0.64/26 > 192.168.0.68/32 > 192.168.0.96/29 > > Tool Result => Free Subnet's: > > 192.168.0.2/31 > 192.168.0.4/30 > 192.168.0.32/27 > 192.168.0.128/25 > > Regards, > > John
