DSL Network Design Question

Mon Aug 15 11:36:55 UTC 2005

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 abuse at cabal.org.uk wrote:

>
> Roy Badami <roy at gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> Interesting, thanks. TBH, I really don't understand why Cisco have
>> kept the classful support for this long...
>
> When a friend was doing a CCNA back in 2003-ish, Cisco were still
> teaching classful addressing. There was plenty of other misinformation
> there. Apparently my home network is impossible to build with such few
> IP addresses. (I use proxy ARP to avoid creating unnecessary subnets
> of the already too small block I have.)
>
> Meanwhile, RIPE's training sessions rap you on the knuckles for using
> terms like "Class C" even though in a world of broken stacks from
> Cisco and Microsoft, you pretty much need to know about it anyway.

I recently did the CCNA training courses (Its now broken into two - 
"INTRO-E" (As the instructor put it.. Intro 'essentials' means fit a 4 day 
course into 3 days by stripping or abbreviating that which isn't quite as 
'essential) and ICND) and IP Classes are still covered.

It was basically a history lesson but it helps newcomers to understand the 
decision making process behind a lot of the historical network configs and 
legacy options within IOS. (And how you can theoretically set up an 
interface without a netmask).

I dont see the harm in retaining the terms and the training for historical 
perspective.  As long as its clearly explained. Most especially for those 
who dont understand that class c != /24 .

Mark.