> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Sat Jul 7 23:11:09
> 2012
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 23:09:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: job screening question
> From: Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com>
> To: Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com>
> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
>
> On 7/7/12, Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote:
> >>"What's the problem with using 255.255.255.247 as a subnet mask if you
> >>want to make a LAN subnet with 12 hosts?"
> >> (5 word answer)
> > Unemployment Office Is That Way -> Is the only 5 word answer I could
> > come up with. The correct answer "invalid netmask", is only two words.
>
> 5 words = "The netmask is not valid."
> Also acceptable response; "A netmask must be contiguous."
"Subnet/Netmask is '/31'-equivalennt, unusable."
"Subnet too small/tiny/miniscule/{other synonyms} too use."
"Invalid netmask under CIDR rules" (also transpose first two words)
"Invalid netmask according to RFC[mumble}" (also transpose first two words)
"Too many hosts for subnet."
"Twelve hosts will not fit."
"You've _got_ to be kidding!"
"Apparent bit-rot in questions database"
If _written_, I't be tempted to respond:
A) Netmask is '/31'-equivalent, unusable
B) Invalid netmask under CIDR rules
C) Apparent bit-rot in questions database
D) Question probably itended LSB 248.
E) Not enough bits in subnet
F) too many hosts for subnet
G) all of the above respones
and then circle G. <*EVIL* grin>
