Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:31:03AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > >The old classful network defaults are probably still the most sensible. > > Absolutely not. I don't know of anyone who actually uses a "class A" > range as a single broadcast network with 16M machines. > True, but then has much of the old Class A range been used yet? > >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? > >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? > But whatever. The point you seem to missing is that given an address and > netmask, a sane broadcast address can be calculated in most cases. > (Assuming 1's broadcast.) The default will fail in corner cases, but > will usually make sense. > Indeed I missed that point when reading your e-mail, sorry. The kernel should imo choose broadcast based on netmask if you give that, so yeah, I agree :) However, if you don't give a netmask either, I don't see why the old classful defaults are wrong. Scott -- Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part