It's probably not valid to frame the question as one that stands to confirm or deny the validity of a denifition such as that applied to the notion of a class C address based upon the behavior exhibited by a given implementation of old-style tcp/ip. Unlike many parts of life, in this case the definition supercedes the implementation.
Conversely, in the context of scrutinizing cisco's rip implementation, your questions are quite timely & relevant. I'd love to know the answers myself. It's obvious that cisco has a reason to stand behind & invest effort into their igrp/eigrp implementation. Based upon both Fred Baker's pivotal role in crafting RFC 1812 and his professional affiliations, their effort in maintaining a competitive OSPF implementation comes as no surprise (I fully admit that those observations may not have had any causal affect or effect on actual events, but i wonder if the reality of their unrobust rip implementation might have encouraged them to more fervently refine & enhance their OSPF implementation). But I've always wondered why they have been several steps behind other competitors as far as their RIP implementation is concerned, in terms of both controlling and diagnosing its behavior. The simple answer is one indirectly implied in threads from many months back, that their proprietary "hybrid" (whatever that means outside the context of gatherings of marketing executives) protocol effort left them with little motivation to direct a sufficient quantity of their programming wherewithal & might towards a truly robust rip implementation Is there more to it? The few high level Cisco engineers I've interacted with seemed well-versed in all commonly-adopted routing protocols EXCEPT RIP, indicating somewhat of a pattern corporate-wide. Nota Bene: my reference point is Wellfleet's RIP implementation, which mattered a lot more when both wellfleet & rip were more prominent participants in the capital "I" internet and the enterprise organizations which fed off of it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "cebuano" To: Sent: 18 July 2002 5:08 pm Subject: RE: private addressing [7:49083] > Howard, > Since 192.168/16 is supposedly Class C, can you tell me why if I > configure RIPv1 it allows me to configure "network 192.168.0.0" instead > of giving me an error? I've tested it and of course it does not generate > or accept any updates until you change it something like 192.168.10.0. > Although it reports when you do a "sh ip prot" that it is routing for > networks 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.10.0. Is this a Cisco IOS "feature"? > I guess the same thing holds true with my question on the 172.16/12 > Private IP. Thanks in advance for your input. > > Elmer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Howard C. Berkowitz > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: private addressing [7:49083] > > >Can anyone tell me..... > > > >172.16.0.0 - 172.31.0.0 is used for class B private addressing.. > > > >That means that it can use 16 class B network address > > > >Now, let say I wan to use 172.35.0.0 block, so is this consider a > private > >address or a public address ? > > Public. > > The private blocks are > > 10/8 > 172.16/12 > 192.168/16 > > Again, the sooner you stop thinking in classful terms, the easier > real-world addressing becomes. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49213&t=49083 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
