On 2006-12-05 16:20, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:14:25PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-12-05 15:20, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:53:54PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >>>> --- books/handbook/install/chapter.sgml 4 Dec 2006 14:43:50 -0000 >>>> 1.338 >>>> +++ books/handbook/install/chapter.sgml 5 Dec 2006 10:53:35 -0000 >>>> @@ -2356,7 +2356,7 @@ >>>> >>>> <listitem> >>>> <para>The address block being used for this local area >>>> - network is a Class C block >>>> + network is a (historical) Class C block >>>> (<hostid role="ipaddr">192.168.0.0</hostid> - >>>> <hostid role="ipaddr">192.168.0.255</hostid>). >>>> The default netmask is for a Class C network >>> >>> Any reason we can't get rid of the mention of "class C" in both cases >>> there? Something like: >>> >>> The address block being used for this local area network is >>> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0. >> >> Or even better: >> >> The address block being used for this local area network is >> <emphasis>192.168.0.0/24</emphasis>. > > What is this new devilry!? > > Seriously, I don't mind either way, but I don't know how much we assume > on the part of our users any more.
I know what you are saying. CIDR-style addresses are nicer when we have to reference address ranges though, so if necessary we can add a mini-section about CIDR notation near the beginning of the networking chapter and reference that as needed :)
pgpRaqoAwv7ib.pgp
Description: PGP signature
