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

Re: etherconf or ifupdown problem with subnets

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:38:25PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
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?

Yes. It's been chopped into smaller pieces, which is why pretending that
"class A" still exists is silly.

>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.

Why not?

Because I think /30 is far more uncommon than /24.
>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

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.

Mike Stone

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: