On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 02:53:57AM +0100, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Please enligthen me if you can find an error in my reasoning, all under the
> assumption of an non-CIDR case.
Your reasoning is not at fault, it's your premise. It's just that
a lot of us (I won't say all of us) who actually have responsibilities for
larger address spaces (I have a /16 plus ISS has a /19, two /20s and a /21
in the corporation), and have to run them, consider the non-CIDR case to be
either a "legacy" situation, an annoyance at best, or an excuse by vendors
for why their routers #$@$#@ up at worse. It really ends up boiling down
to netmask and netmask and netmask and nothing much else. Class A, Class B,
and Class C degenerate into nothing more than the DEFAULT initial netmasks
(/8, /16, and /14 respectively) to be modified by appropriate routing
tables and configurations. I have lots of networks where I see the
"illegal" one bit wide subnet masks. Those restrictions from RFC 1122 are
largely meaningless in a CIDR world.
To paraphrase uncounted paraphrases of a paraphrase of an
expression...
There are two classes of networks...
Those that are CIDR and those that will be CIDR. The "non-CIDR
case" is a non-op in the real world of the current internet.
Hmmm... That may be a BIT strong... Non-CIDR can interact with
the core internet. It's not a non-op per se... It's much more of a pain
in the fanny than a non-op.
> Cheers,
> Magnus
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST