On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:45:19 EDT, der Mouse said:

> (Actually, for a while I was using a netmask of 0xffffffd8 for my house
> LAN.  One of the things I dislike about IPv6 is the desupport for
> noncontiguous netmasks - I can understand it, but I don't like it.)

Many moons ago, when the concept of subnetting on non-octet boundaries
was still relatively new, the guys at Interop decided to carve up the
show network... differently (partly for technical reasons, and partly
because at that time it still had some "shootout" aspects and they wanted
to see who whinged).  And the tech team had t-shirts that said "Yes, the
subnet mask really *is* 255.255.252.0".   Anybody who whined about it was
told "And next year it will be 255.255.250.0"  at which point the whining
converted to horrified panic at a rate directly proportional to the speed
the guy could convert 250 to binary.. ;)

Attachment: pgpAg6OCEAOxT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

Reply via email to