On 07:25 21 Feb 2002, Jason Costomiris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Wow, that reference guide is written to confuse people.
That reference guide may well predate the term "subnet". | Nobody I know in the industry would refer to 10/8 as anything other than | an "8-bit subnet", or 172.16/12 as a "12-bit subnet", or 192.168/16 as a | "16-bit subnet".... | In the real world of networking, if you asked for a "24-bit block", you would | be given a /24, that is, a subnet consisting of 256 addresses. Yes, but that aren't talking about that. A subnet is inherently contained within a "network" - a class A, B or C network. They are talking about a range of addresses. Its span need not lie within a single network. Indeed, the address sets they refer do DO NOT lie within single A B or C networks, and so ARE NOT subnets. In short, you're confused probably because you don't have the correct definition of the term subnet, which has a very specific meaning. Sure, in the real world you're handed a subnet. That's because it's wasteful to hand our things what aren't subnets - the routing tables get very ugly. But that RFC isn't talking about subnets. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ Wouldn't it be great if the insurance company would fix your bike to the tune of $3300, then have an adjuster escort you and supervise while you inflict $3300 worth of non-insurable damage to his truck? - Dave Svoboda, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
