IP address fee??

Fri Sep 6 16:58:22 UTC 2002

At 12:42 PM 9/6/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Was this reply directed at me, particularly?
>
>
>Joe

Joe,

    Most definitely not.  I felt that the two comments I included most 
closely represented the discussion and information I wanted to pass.

    No offense meant, I hope none taken, apologies if they were.

Ted

>On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:33:09PM -0400, Ted Fischer wrote:
> > At 10:00 AM 9/6/02 -0400, Joe Abley postulated:
> >
> > >On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:13:27PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > >> Because "Cee" is easier to pronounce than "slash twenty-four".  Ease of
> > >use
> > >> trumps open standards yet again :)
> > >
> > >Nobody was talking. "/24" is easier to type than "class C". No
> > >trumps!  Everybody loses!
> > >
> > >How many people learn about networks from certification courses or
> > >in school, anyway? It was always my impression that people learnt
> > >mainly by listening to other people.
> > >
> > >If networking on the front lines is an informal oral tradition more
> > >than it is a taught science, then perhaps it's natural for obsolete
> > >terminology to continue to be "taught" long after it stopped having
> > >any relevance.
> > >
> > >
> > >Joe
> >
> >    The class of an address is determined by the bit-pattern of the first
> > octet of the address.  10.0.0.0 will always be a Class A
> > address.  172.16.0.0 will always be a Class B address, and 192.168.0.0 
> will
> > always be Class C address.  I'm not aware of any RFC that rescinded the
> > definition of the Class of an address.
> >
> >    Masks, when associated with an address, enable one to determine  (a),
> > what network I'm on (if I'm an IP host) or (b) how many addresses exist
> > within a given range of addresses (if I'm a routing table).
> >
> >    Subnetting (robbing mask host bits (0's) to make network bits (1's)
> > allowed one to more effectively use the decreasing amounts of networks 
> that
> > required less than the default number of addresses (65,536 in the case 
> of a
> > Class B) by more effeciently using the space one had been allocated.  With
> > subnetting, I can take one Classful network and make many (sub)networks
> > from it.  There was no way prior to 1993, however, to effectively 
> represent
> > the range of addresses in more than one Classful network.
> >
> >    CIDR, simply stated, says that one can use any address with any mask,
> > regardless of the original class of the address, to represent a range of
> > addresses (i.e. rob network bits to make host bits).  It allows the
> > properties of IP to be more effectively used for IP host addressing (only
> > need a /23 to support 400 IP hosts (a very effecient  78% use of the
> > allocated space), as well as (one of the original, primary reasons for
> > CIDR) aggregate ("Supernet") "X" traditional Class C's into one routing
> > statement (who today would advertise delivery to the range of 4,096
> > addresses from, for example, 192.168.192.0 through 192.168.207.255 with 16
> > individual traditional Class C statements?).
> >
> >    Since NANOG is "the front line", then perhaps that is where the oral
> > tradition should be teaching the history of IP addressing, from Classful
> > addressing (default masks) to Subnetting (other than default) to
> > Supernetting (ranges of addresses regardless of original - or legacy if 
> you
> > will - class (Classless)).
> >
> >    The prefix, of course, does not refer to the class of the address, but
> > the number of contiguous ones in the mask.  As far as pronounciation goes,
> > I prefer "slash 24" to "two fifty five dot two fifty five dot two fifty
> > five dot zero" :)
> >
> > $.02
> >
> > Ted Fischer
> >