The difference is very, very slight. 9 times out of 10, they will mean the exact same thing.
However, the terms can have a contextual meaning in cases where we're discussing the subnetting of a given network. In those cases, the two terms "network mask" and "sub-network mask" can have distinct meanings. That is, if we make a distinction between a "network" and a "sub-network" then "the mask of a network" and "the mask of a sub-network" mean different things because of the context. This distinction is a relative distinction.
For example, let's say you've been issued the 10.10.0.0/16
network (using CIDR notation). Here, your "network mask" is 255.255.0.0
. Let's say you need to separate this network into 4 smaller networks, each as large as they could possibly be. In order to get 4 networks out of 10.10.0.0/16
, you need to borrow two bits (00, 01, 10, 11) from the host address and use them for the subnet addresses. This will give you the following sub-networks:
10.10.0.0/18
10.10.64.0/18
10.10.128.0/18
10.10.192.0/18
Here, your "network mask" is still 255.255.0.0
, but each "subnet mask" is 255.255.192.0
.
But, as I said, it's completely a relative term based on context. One could also talk about 255.255.192.0
being a "network mask" and then 255.255.0.0
being a "supernet mask" if in the same context we're talking about 10.10.0.0/16
being a supernet of, say, 10.10.64.0/18
. It's all based on the context of what is being discussed.
3It is just slang. – KCotreau – 2011-07-26T17:01:25.317
2then why should microsoft use 2 names for it ? – SpiXel – 2011-07-26T17:05:06.983
3Why do we call William, Bill or Billy? We like to, and in some case, just lazy. The proper term is subnet mask, but they others are just used a lot, probably netmask more though. – KCotreau – 2011-07-26T17:10:54.403