all zeroes/all ones used in host IP's...

[Michael H. Warfield]

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 en 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 en vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/