Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
I had heard that there was an RFC pertaining to using a /31 on Point-to-Point links only (in which case there is no need for a network/broadcast address). Has this been implemented in (Cisco) network equipment yet? Is the RFC complete? Anyone know? Priscilla? Howard? Mike W. "Gaz" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thought that's what you meant but thought I'd clarify before I made a > pillock of myself. > > Now I've clarified I'll steam on and make a pillock of myself :-) > > I don't know how long it's been now (quite a while), but yes both of these > are used these days. "ip subnet-zero" command is useful for this. > I'm sure there are situations where this is still not a good idea, and I'm > sure people will jump in and give you the low down any minute now, but I've > had no problems with using them. > Also - not used it much other than playing around, but 31 bit mask is > available as well so you've only got a network and broadcast address to play > with. I've never been that short of addresses that I want to complicate it > that much. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47749&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
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. Mike W. "Kazan, Naim" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47750&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
The RFC is 3021 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3021.txt It is implemented on Cisco routers: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122 t/122t2/ft31addr.htm Cheers, Willy Schoots -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael L. Williams Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] I had heard that there was an RFC pertaining to using a /31 on Point-to-Point links only (in which case there is no need for a network/broadcast address). Has this been implemented in (Cisco) network equipment yet? Is the RFC complete? Anyone know? Priscilla? Howard? Mike W. "Gaz" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thought that's what you meant but thought I'd clarify before I made a > pillock of myself. > > Now I've clarified I'll steam on and make a pillock of myself :-) > > I don't know how long it's been now (quite a while), but yes both of these > are used these days. "ip subnet-zero" command is useful for this. > I'm sure there are situations where this is still not a good idea, and I'm > sure people will jump in and give you the low down any minute now, but I've > had no problems with using them. > Also - not used it much other than playing around, but 31 bit mask is > available as well so you've only got a network and broadcast address to play > with. I've never been that short of addresses that I want to complicate it > that much. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47753&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
Cool thanks for the info! Mike W. - Original Message - From: Brigitte Schoots To: Michael L. Williams ; Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:36 AM Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > The RFC is 3021 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3021.txt > > It is implemented on Cisco routers: > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122 > t/122t2/ft31addr.htm > > Cheers, > > Willy Schoots > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Michael L. Williams > Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > > > I had heard that there was an RFC pertaining to using a /31 on > Point-to-Point links only (in which case there is no need for a > network/broadcast address). Has this been implemented in (Cisco) network > equipment yet? Is the RFC complete? > > Anyone know? Priscilla? Howard? > > Mike W. > > "Gaz" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Thought that's what you meant but thought I'd clarify before I made a > > pillock of myself. > > > > Now I've clarified I'll steam on and make a pillock of myself :-) > > > > I don't know how long it's been now (quite a while), but yes both of these > > are used these days. "ip subnet-zero" command is useful for this. > > I'm sure there are situations where this is still not a good idea, and I'm > > sure people will jump in and give you the low down any minute now, but > I've > > had no problems with using them. > > Also - not used it much other than playing around, but 31 bit mask is > > available as well so you've only got a network and broadcast address to > play > > with. I've never been that short of addresses that I want to complicate it > > that much. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47755&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following networks: 198.62.0.0/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.1-14 and 192.168.0.240/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.241-254 This would be utilizing the "all-zeros" and "all-ones" subnets of 192.168.0.0/24 You tested configuring machines in the *networks* 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.255.0/24 - not subnets of 192.168.0.0/16 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael L. Williams Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] 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. Mike W. "Kazan, Naim" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47756&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
To be more "correct" I should have said: "Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following subnets:" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Benjamin Kessler Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following networks: 198.62.0.0/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.1-14 and 192.168.0.240/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.241-254 This would be utilizing the "all-zeros" and "all-ones" subnets of 192.168.0.0/24 You tested configuring machines in the *networks* 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.255.0/24 - not subnets of 192.168.0.0/16 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael L. Williams Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] 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. Mike W. "Kazan, Naim" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47757&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
I'm not really sure what your getting at here... If you configure a machine address to be 192.168.0.2/24 you are using subnet zero, whereas if you configure a machine with an address of 192.168.0.241-254/28 you are not. If you mean configure the PC with an address of 192.168.0.240/28 then that would be a valid test of subnet zero using VLSM. - Original Message - From: "R. Benjamin Kessler" To: Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:43 PM Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following > networks: > > 198.62.0.0/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.1-14 > and > 192.168.0.240/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.241-254 > > This would be utilizing the "all-zeros" and "all-ones" subnets of > 192.168.0.0/24 > > You tested configuring machines in the *networks* 192.168.0.0/24 and > 192.168.255.0/24 - not subnets of 192.168.0.0/16 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Michael L. Williams > Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > > 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. > > Mike W. > > "Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47759&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
Gotcha... I'll try it and see how it goes... Mike W. - Original Message - From: R. Benjamin Kessler To: 'Michael L. Williams' ; Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 12:04 PM Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > Try configuring your machine(s) with addresses in the following > networks: > > 198.62.0.0/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.1-14 > and > 192.168.0.240/28 - e.g. 192.168.0.241-254 > > This would be utilizing the "all-zeros" and "all-ones" subnets of > 192.168.0.0/24 > > You tested configuring machines in the *networks* 192.168.0.0/24 and > 192.168.255.0/24 - not subnets of 192.168.0.0/16 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Michael L. Williams > Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 11:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > > 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. > > Mike W. > > "Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47761&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
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 >Mike W. > >"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > subnets 0-255. Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47767&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
192.168.152.0 255.255.255.128 my nt servers are at address 192.168.152.45-60 and 192.168.152.145-60 with subnet mask 128...the network is split into two remote locations and no routing problems...oh i am rounning eigrp as my routing protocol.. so in reference to your question yes nt 4 and 2k support this masking.. lawrence a sculark LAWRENCE A SCULARK >From: "Kazan, Naim" >Reply-To: "Kazan, Naim" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:48:42 -0400 >Received: from [66.220.63.9] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBEE6499900254004319842DC3F090D400; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:26:03 -0700 >Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA19292;Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:04:09 -0400 >Received: by groupstudy.com (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:48:43 -0400 >Received: (from listserver@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17309GroupStudy Mailer; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:48:43 -0400 >Received: (from mail@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17304GroupStudy Mailer; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:48:42 -0400 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:27:23 -0700 >Message-Id: >X-GroupStudy-Version: 3.1.1a >X-GroupStudy: Network Technical >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk > >Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support >subnets 0-255. > >-Original Message- >From: Mike Mandulak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:10 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > > >It's became available in 12.0. > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/40.html > >- Original Message - >From: "Gaz" >To: >Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 7:27 PM >Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > > > > Thought that's what you meant but thought I'd clarify before I made a > > pillock of myself. > > > > Now I've clarified I'll steam on and make a pillock of myself :-) > > > > I don't know how long it's been now (quite a while), but yes both of these > > are used these days. "ip subnet-zero" command is useful for this. > > I'm sure there are situations where this is still not a good idea, and I'm > > sure people will jump in and give you the low down any minute now, but >I've > > had no problems with using them. > > Also - not used it much other than playing around, but 31 bit mask is > > available as well so you've only got a network and broadcast address to >play > > with. I've never been that short of addresses that I want to complicate it > > that much. > > > > Gaz > > > > ""Jarred Nicholls"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Well Gaz, thanks for replying =) Here is the deal in more detail. > > > > > > My friend who just got a job with Merrill Lynch, spoke with several CCIE > > > Security and R&S engineers, and here is what they told him. > > > > > > With new Cisco gear and the latest IOS version, the subnet rule, that we > > > have all learned in the past, where the first and the last subnet is > > > non-usable because of the network and broadcast addresses, no longer > > > applies. Hence, the first and the last subnets are now usable with new > > > Cisco gear and new IOS, because of a different process used than ANDing. > > > > > > So, I wanted to see if anyone else has heard about this new change >besides > > > just my friend. I definitely believe him but I just don't know. > > > > >Message Posted at: >http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47727&t=47670 >-- >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47758&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
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, 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. > > >>Mike W. >> >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47799&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
I figured you would yell at me for saying "Class C." :-) Priscilla At 05:55 PM 6/30/02, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >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, >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. > > > > > > >>Mike W. > >> > >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > > subnets 0-255. Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47800&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
It seems to have more to do with the nature of the code forced to interpret it than any inherent properties of the number corresponding to the address - Original Message - From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" To: Sent: 30 June 2002 5:55 pm Subject: Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670] > 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, > 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. > > > > > > >>Mike W. > >> > >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47803&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
""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? CL: also, in a situation where it matters, would an ISP advertsie 192/8, recognizing it contains defined private space? > 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. > > > > > > >>Mike W. > >> > >>"Kazan, Naim" wrote in message > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > Ok, now that we know the answer to that question? Will windows support > > > > subnets 0-255. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47804&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
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. 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=47811&t=47670 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Subnet Rule [7:47670]
""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]
