On 7/8/12, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 7, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Randy <[email protected]> wrote: >> My response would be: Discontiguous subnet masks were allowed in the >> pre-CIDR era. If you so desire, give me about 2 hours since I do not have
See, I would advocate using the filter questions for sorting the apps, and tell the applicants "We're expecting a 5 words or less answer, not a history lesson or technical explanation."; if more than 25% of applicants out of say 1000 get it correct, then the filter is considered valid, and the ones that pass the most filter questions are the least likely to not be a waste of time. I'm not sure which era exactly in which you consider it legal and kosher to assign to a network, but even if you relax all the rules that require contiguity, it is still an illegal network mask for end hosts, just like 255.255.255.254 is; if an applicant doesn't flag it out as bad/invalid subnet mask in this era, then they might fail the filter, even if they correctly observe that you can't fit that many hosts in. >> a scientific calculator handy; and I will get back to you with the >> complete-list. A what? >> Definitely not 5 words as required from the HR stand point. So I get >> disqualified again! >> ./Randy > Oh, come on, 247 decimal is 0xf7... A single zero bit in the mask isn't > enough for 12 hosts no matter where it is. Correct... it's not even enough bits for 1 end host; it's enough bits for 1 broadcast address. > If you need a scientific calculator and 2 hours for that, HR is right. > Matthew Kaufman > Sent from my iPad -- -JH
