Simon, I agree with you on the stupid manufacturers.... However I am a consultant that is asked to fix the problem. If there is a Microsoft Windows 3.1 system powering the patty packing system at a meat packaging plant and the client wants it networked, I network it. When a machine like a industrial packager or even an AS400 has been in use for 15+ years replacing it is never an option as it has paid for its self many times over.
On the netmask issue. If you need a 16bit netmask the 192.168 network is for that. If you need a 12bit address (~1million host) then the 172.16-31 network is there for that. If you need 16+ million host you need to subnet. Here is where an issue arises and causes all kinds of fun. Lets imagine a multinational company that is using 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12, and 10.0.0.0/8 on VLANs at 16 locations international. Because they selected such large networks the address pools where assigned to different areas and even statically assigned further. A few years go by.... They want to setup a MPLS network to interconnect and bridge the sites. They call you. What are you going to do? Imagine a public school that has a simple network of 172.16.0.0/20 and they need to integrate into a statewide network. I am sure you can write the routing information for that on a piece of paper. A well defined network is easy to route, manage, and understand. I hope that all the FWLUG folks can look at the networks they manage and answer what the 5 and 10 year plan is. What happens if the company/school is absorbed into a larger group? How is static addressing handled? Why is their only one DNS server? Why have I not played with http://ebox-platform.com/ before... Now off to http://www.boswars.org/ for that afternoon battle.... On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Simón Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Simón Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > > So, I was thinking about this, and this may sound a little like Bill > Gates scoffing at the need for more memory, but... > > How in the world would anyone need 16,777,216 machines on one subnet? > > I mean it's even hard to think of wanting more than 65,536 machines on > one subnet, but 17 million? > > I can envision a private supernet that requires more than 256 subnets > (thus making class B and C networks too small), but 17 million > machines on one subnet seems...mindbogglingly illogical. > > 10.0.0.0/8 sounds to me like a wholly stupid subnet to ever use. > > On the other hand, if you ignore the standard, then "10" is an > excellent, round, easily human-rememberable number, and then you have > total freedom to use whatever numbering scheme you feel like using to > distinguish your subnets. > > So, I can't say I'm surprised people don't stick to the RFC standard. > > Using 10.*.*.* as a blank slate to do with whatever you will is an > infinitely more useful idea than having it reserved for effectively > one infinitely huge subnet. > > So, accepting that this usage is a violation of the technical > standard: If *most* people use it in that way, then we might not be > following the RFC, but by the usage of the word that most > English-speakers would understand, the RFC—while a technical > standard—is a codification of non-standard behavior. > > IMHO, any manufacturer that is *that* out of touch with the market > that they would create devices that would function incorrectly within > the most popular usage of the 10.*.*.* range deserves to get them sent > back for being defective, even if they stick to the RFC standard in > this case. > > Just a thought. A thoroughly biased, Devil's Advocate type, thought. ;-) > > 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
