Re: etherconf or ifupdown problem with subnets
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:31:03AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Michael Stone wrote:
> > Yes. If it's not specified it should have a sensible default.
> The old classful network defaults are probably still the most sensible.
> 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.
> I can't see any argument for any other default range, /24 is far too big
> for any real networks to be "useful".
Classless allocation means that any mask goes, so none of these are
reasonable defaults. If the user does not specify a netmask, the logical
thing to do would be to use a /32 mask. This will probably be wrong for any
particular configuration, but is wrong in a clear and unmistakable way,
rather than in a subtly broken way, like assuming /24 or classful masks.
Even more preferable would be to always require a netmask, but that probably
isn't feasible for compatibility reasons.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com