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.
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.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org