Michael Stone wrote: > >> >If you're arguing that the introduction of CIDR means that we should use > >> >smaller defaults than the old ranges, then a /30 should be the default. > >> > >> No! > >> > >Why not? > > Because I think /30 is far more uncommon than /24. > You'd be surprised. Nearly all the customer netblock allocations we give to customers are /28, /29 or /30. Getting a /24 off RIPE for a single customer is for all intents and purposes, impossible. > >> >I can't see any argument for any other default range, /24 is far too big > >> >for any real networks to be "useful". > >> > >> Curious. I'm surrounded by /24's here. > >> > >Are they RFC1918 space, or CIDR space? > > CIDR. I don't know what gives you the idea that a 2-machine subnet is > ideal. > The most sensible default is the lowest bound, surely? Less likely to cause problems? /24 is an arbitrarily *large* netblock. > >However, if you don't give a netmask either, I don't see why the old > >classful defaults are wrong. > > Because they are utterly meaningless on the modern internet. If someone > doesn't specify a netmask in the install process we should either abort > or try a few other tricks (like icmp netmask request) rather than using > a meaningless default. > Perhaps, but you either have to error, or provide some kind of sensible default. I do not believe that /24 is sensible across the board. Scott -- Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part