""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 8:03 PM -0400 6/30/02, Chuck wrote: > >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> At 8:44 PM -0400 6/29/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > >> >At 12:49 PM 6/29/02, Michael L. Williams wrote: > >> >>I have successfully used both an "all-zeros" and an "all-ones" subnet > on > >> >>Windows 9x. (192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.255.0/24) Works fine. > >> > > >> >Those aren't subnets, though, since it's class C. > >> > > >> >Priscilla > >> > >> Ah, Priscilla, Priscilla, Priscilla. And all along I respected you > >> because I thought your design thinking had no class. > >> > >> It would be accurate to say 192/8 is the traditional Class C space, > > > >CL: 192/3? "Class C" space includes anything from 192/8 through 223/8 Am I > >constructing the CIDR block correctly? > > Strictly, yes. But there are historical issues here. 192/8 was the > only part widely assigned before there was concern about address > exhaustion, and today is called "the swamp", with that part of 192/8 > greater than /24 called the "toxic waste dump". At the start of the > CIDR effort, the swamp took up 50% of the routing table, and the > toxic waste dump took up 50% of the swamp.
CL: asking because I don't know enough to figure it out for myself, but is there danger of something similar happening with the allocations out of the former "A" space? Or are the registries and the ISP's now getting slots here working things such that summarization is easily done? CL: ( quickly looking up a couple of things on ARIN.net ) answered my own question. Neet!!! :-> > > By the time there were significant allocations from the rest of the > traditional class C space, registries were asking for much more > justification, and also might assign CIDR blocks. > > > > >CL: also, in a situation where it matters, would an ISP advertsie 192/8, > >recognizing it contains defined private space? > > I can't see any reason why anyone would advertise 192/8. Large chunks > of it, yes, and generally very poorly aggregated. At the time 192/8 > was being allocated, if you needed more space, you'd typically get a > traditional class B assignment. > > > > > > >> with the assumption of a /24 mask. To have shorter masks in that > >> space does imply CIDR awareness, but there can still be significant > >> problems -- and carrier filtering issues -- merely because something > >> is in 192/8. > >> > >> Ironically, I once had a /22 in 192/8, which was generally subnetted > >> into /25's. There were a couple of sites where I could have used a > >> /24, but chose not to because any /24 tends to draw unneeded > > > attention of the Address Vigilantes. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47816&t=47670 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
