Edited excerpt from a private conversation. For those who don't know what CIDR is, this should help: For IPv4 there are only 32 acceptable netmask / CIDR values (not 33): Netmask CIDR Addresses available --------------- ---- ------------------- 0.0.0.0 /0 4,294,967,294 128.0.0.0 /1 2,147,483,646 192.0.0.0 /2 1,073,741,822 224.0.0.0 /3 536,870,910 240.0.0.0 /4 268,435,454 248.0.0.0 /5 134,217,726 252.0.0.0 /6 67,108,862 254.0.0.0 /7 33,554,430 255.0.0.0.0 /8 16,777,215 255.128.0.0 /9 8,388,606 255.192.0.0 /10 4,194,302 255.224.0.0 /11 2,097,150 255.240.0.0 /12 1,048,574 255.248.0.0 /13 524,286 255.252.0.0 /14 262,142 255.254.0.0 /15 131,071 255.255.0.0 /16 65,534 255.255.128.0 /17 32,766 255.255.192.0 /18 16,382 255.255.224.0 /19 8,190 255.255.240.0 /20 4,094 255.255.248.0 /21 2,046 255.255.252.0 /22 1,022 255.255.254.0 /23 510 255.255.255.0 /24 254 255.255.255.128 /25 126 255.255.255.192 /26 62 255.255.255.224 /27 30 255.255.255.240 /28 14 255.255.255.248 /29 6 255.255.255.252 /30 2 255.255.255.255 /32 1 Note the absence of 255.255.255.254 (CIDR /31). This is not acceptable since it defines a network with a network address and a broadcast address, but no host addresses available. While such a network might be usable for broadcast-only applications, it's probably not usable in most real-world situations. For FTP, where we need a _host_ address, no host could possibly exist so the netmask / CIDR value makes no sense. Using netmasks, nonsense such as 255.128.0.1 is possible and even works as one would expect (with a lot of careful thought) on most Unix systems (provided you can set it; many command-level tools prevent it), but it makes for a VERY odd network architecture.