[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: etherconf or ifupdown problem with subnets

Michael Stone wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:38:59AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The particular network numbers you cited were in the class-B range, not
> > in the class-A range, were they not?  Therefore, the kernel will default
> > to using a class-B broadcast.
> Which is, of course, a completely useless default since the introduction
> of CIDR. Our user space should make more sane choices.
> > If etherconf is a front-end config tool for /etc/network/interfaces
> > (I don't use it myself), I would argue the correct behavior is to
> > automatically calculate the broadcast address and set it appropriately,
> Yes. If it's not specified it should have a sensible default.
The old classful network defaults are probably still the most sensible.

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.

I can't see any argument for any other default range, /24 is far too big
for any real networks to be "useful".

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

Reply to: