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

Re: etherconf or ifupdown problem with subnets

Michael Stone wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > 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.
> Nor is any other arbitrary number. Note that this is why I said "If
> someone doesn't specify a netmask...we should...abort...rather than
> using a meaningless default" (in the text you quoted).
Aye, I'm being guilty of not reading carefully.  My apologies, I blame
lack of morning coffee :p

I only chose /30 to indicate how arbitrary that number could be, anyway.

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: