Date: 19 Dec 2002 11:33:31 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Jeffrey P.Bogert" <jbogert@mitre.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Handbook Message-ID: <r1znr1g5x0.nr1@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3E01FA5E.87B6FC46@mitre.org> References: <3E01FA5E.87B6FC46@mitre.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jeffrey P.Bogert" <jbogert@mitre.org> writes:
> 2) on page 53 in the section "Netmask"
> the Class C block should be 192.168.0.0-192.168.0.255 instead of
> 192.168.0.0-192.168.255.255
Many understand this better than I, but let me flag this for review.
My copy says:
Netmask
The address block being used for this local area network is a Class
C block (192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255). The default netmask is for
a Class C network (255.255.255.0).
All of which is correct, methinks. That 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
is the Class C block of addresses reserved for private use on a LAN such
as is being configured here. In these sub-netting days, the term
"block" needn't be limited to a "natural" Class C network of 256 hosts.
Users need not use the default netmask, of course, and might want to
use more (or less) of the reserved block than 192.168.0.0-192.168.0.255.
Moreover, I've read that 192.168.0.* (and 192.168.255.*) shouldn't even
be used, because they are not reliably handled. I'm not sure why; maybe
many old routers were buggy; and maybe this is obsolete advice. I DO
notice that my fairly recent CISCO-certified study guide uses
192.168.1.* as an example natural Class C network (as oppososed to
192.168.0.*). Maybe the number in "IPv4 address" should be changed.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?r1znr1g5x0.nr1>