Netmasks for dummies 3011
Moe Trin prg reference of wrong
Well, it was just a comment on the age of the RFCs you mentioned and the apparent concern they had for "backward compatibility" with what they knew were ill considered but common practice on some "exposed" networks.
accommodating: matter what long the may run
The one that basically says 'yea' or 'nay'' is 0950, and the listing from the current index says: 0950 Internet Standard...
Juha Siltala Torvalds but I Linux Minix Indeed. And at the time, SCO had no free home use license, and I don't recall anyone else offering one either. Later on, SCO did offer such...
True today, but "many" years ago there were some pretty flakey ASes advertising routes that exposed stub nets' hosts "inadvertently". In effect, external users did have nitty gritty access to some poorly designed networks. Especially on large university networks with an obscene number of public IPs on their internal net (running their own BGP?).
of -d' ' 223-8 BEEN be soon Lessee,
It's the poor sods (that I was thinking of) that knew that they could not enforce, only strongly encourage, the adoption of sensible practices. Thus the frequent "should's" rather than "MUSTs" in the RFCs re: IP addressing.
have hosts to ;) 2
Ugghhhhh... Yuk.
that gave 1's network? supplementary
I see now for sure you were not in any way suggesting that it might not matter if someone did not use contiguous bit masks. I didn't really think you were, but I couldn't resist trying to find what in the RFCs might lead someone else to think otherwise.
Actually, if I hadn't read some sections closely, I could see how someone (some did in the past?) might think it was OK. I really had to think a second or two on a couple of the sentences I read. It was worth it for that, I guess.
Hope your kidneys are holding up ;)
regards, prg
Linux groups from Newsgroups