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 -- 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