Hi there, On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Greg Choules wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, G.W. Haywood wrote: ... > Is there a reason not to split the /8 into two /9s or something like that? ... Although it is technically possible to do reverses on non-octet boundaries (for example, see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) it is a complete pita, in my experience. Personally I would not head down that path. Stick to /8, /16 or /24.
Please could you elaborate a bit? Does RFC1918's 172.16/12 mark a special case, or is that a PITA too? I've used such addresses, but never at anything like their full scale. My "something like" might have included 10.16.0/12 and 10.24.0.0/12, is your PITA comment equally applicable? I'd be surprised if the OP couldn't manage with 2^20 IPs in a segment - but then I guess he does work in the .gov domain. I'm not trying to be awkward, I'd really like to know in case I ever come up against this myself. (And it's the thirtieth anniversary of RFC1517. What did we miss? :) -- 73, Ged. -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
