|
|
In article <gE9he.1405$sb5.1342@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf wrote:
>On the one hand you mention standards, on the other you say you can do what
>you want. :)
Well, technically, it is correct. You might encounter a problem if you
use a non-contiguous mask, and no current operating system that I'm
familiar with wants to see it, but "your network - your rules". Just
don't expect everyone to fall all over each other trying to talk to
your network.
>It is not a valid netmask. .Using CIDR or Classful you can never get to a
>253 netmask If you don't believe me, try doing the math with paper and
>pencil. A little demonstration will go a long way to clearing up
>misconceptions.
Please cite the STANDARD document that replaces or otherwise obsoletes
RFC0950 and 1122. Kindly consult the RFC Editor index at
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt, or http://www.ietf.org/rfc/. If
you haven't been there before, be advised that there are a _lot_ of RFCS.
When I grabbed a copy of the index about 2 weeks ago, the count was a bit
over 4100.
>An IP address is divided into two portions: Network and Host.
That's great. Now go read RFC0950, RFC1122 and the INFORMATIONAL document
RFC1219. After that, you can then read the PROPOSED STANDARD documents
RFC151[789]. Then read RFC2026 (note - I'm not shouting, I'm using the
capitalization specified by the RFCs).
You are correct that the 'defacto' standard is a contiguous mask. I agree
with you. Current computer systems and many routers would barf if they saw
a non-contiguous mask. But RFC0950 and 1122 are still the standards and they
do not _REQUIRE_ a contiguous mask - see page 5 of RFC0950, and section
3.2.1.3. of RFC1122.
>I will try and find some decent sites on subnetting and post URLs here for
>ya. You can start by checking out Cisco though.
1878 Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4. T. Pummill, B. Manning.
December 1995. (Format: TXT=19414 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1860) (Status:
INFORMATIONAL)
Find RFC1878 at your favorite mirror.
Old guy
|
|