> I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy > had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)
actually, bill and i disagreed. this is not unusual :-) >> On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> class A == /32 >>> class B == /48 >>> class C == /56 >>> hostroute == /64 and i: >> I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C" >> more or less interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us >> still do that... > well, now you can do it for /64s > and class B can be /48s (or is it /56s?) > and class A can be /32s as, in the truely classful days, a lan was a C == /24, i'll stick to my guns for the moment that a new C is a /64 and so forth. as there is no emoticon for sarcasm, the naive should know that i (and maybe bill) draw this comparison to point out that, by codifying such boundaries in technology and policy, we're making the same old mistakes again. randy
