Ben, you are on topic here and the issue is that the design of networks is sometimes left to looks and feels. I know one consultant that lives in Ft. Wayne that only uses a 10.0.0.0 network no mater what size business it is. I talk to people who from working with people like this that select "vanity" IP addressing schemes that later become an issue. The issue is that the RFC states an idea and how to get to this idea. Each manufacturer and then the person setting up have a responsibility to continue these ideas for interoperability.
Wow that was much easier than my first rant... On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Ben Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:25 -0500, Simón Ruiz 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 > > <rant> > Can't/Shouldn't these problems be resolved by using devices and software > that are CIDR complaint and even better yet support also supernets? I > understand that people make devices and software that are broken or just > plain designed poorly but file bugs or don't use/purchase them. You > shouldn't have to structure your network around devices/software that > are just understand classful networks which began being obsoleted around > 1994. > </rant> > > Please comment and correct me where I am wrong or if I totally missed > the point of these rants. > > Thanks, > Ben > > Quick references: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classful_network > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernet > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
