Yes, Simon this is a big problem because it does just _work_ most of the time. I feel the worst part is getting used to it working and then expecting it to work all the time.
Also keep in mind that a 16bit subnet of an 8bit network will address and work with its peers fine. The issue comes when devices lack the ability to address 8bit (think low brained network devices) and or the IP stack has hard coded private networks like "anything starting with a 10 is 8bit" and "anything starting with a 192 is a 24bit" in which the latter is actually wrong. The private networks are as follows.... 10.0.0.0 = 8bit 172.16 to 172.31 = 12bit 192.168 = 16bit There are other public networks that are reserved. I am concentrating on the LAN side of things with stupid untrustworthy devices. Also of important note is that most vendors and educators teach that a 192.168 net is a the _24bit_ reserved network. It is the 16bit reserved network but because of its subneting possibilities is logically treated as a 24bit. I think Simon and others will understand that this is one of those hairy "it works" issues that you have to understand and work with as best you can. On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Simón Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Andrew Latham > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I know that companies and organizations will continue to use >> addressing that _looks_ or _feels_ right. Remember that the _looks_ >> and _feels_ can bite you later. > > I appreciate your rant in that I wasn't aware that 10.0.0.0/8 is the > only standard way to use the 10.*.*.* range of IP addresses. I shall > try to remember this in the future. > > On the other hand, even *thinking* about going through and > reconfiguring every single piece of relevant equipment in our > possession and then re-training myself not to think of the HS subnet > as 10.0.*.* and the MS as 10.1.*.*, etc. is very, very, very, very > painful. > > So, the argument of "Well, the system was here when I've arrived and > I've yet to see a problem with it." that I just made in a quote > earlier in this sentence is not meant as refutation of your argument > about standards and best practices, but as a defense mechanism that > allows me to avoid feeling compelled to bring our subnet usage in line > with said standards and best practices. > > The further argument that I will make in the following quote, "So, if > my chances of ever seeing this be a problem are less than 50%, and the > likely problems I might see would be limited to a specific device or > two that I could replace (or just not buy), is it really worth it?", > is likewise not aimed at your illuminating rant but at the idea of how > much network (computers, phones, e-mail server, web server, etc.) > down-time I imagine we would need to inflict on our end-users in the > process. > > </rant> > > ;-) > > Simón > > _______________________________________________ > Fwlug mailing list > [email protected] > http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org > -- Andrew "lathama" Latham TuxTone Inc. http://TuxTone.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Fwlug mailing list [email protected] http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org
