Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets

On 31/07/2026 14:04, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The class ABC terminology persisted as a neat way to refer to specific
>> netmasks
> 
> Only in Idiots, the rests uses /8, /16 and /24.
> 
>> And the private networkls of those sizes were defined to never be on a
>> public network or routable by BGP
> 
> But noone with a sane grip on networking ever configures
> 192.168.0.0/16. 

Why not. That's 'classless routing' you so endorse.
Or they might do /23 just to be different


You use a /24 network out of that range. And if you're
> really smart, you pick a random third octet¹ to avoid conflicts.
> 
Do I? Ought I? Should I? But classless routing says I do WTF I want.

>> In the end its the usual mix of pedantry, technical issues and common
>> speech.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
>>
>> RFC 1918 may be 30 years old, but it is still in effect. And it refers
>> to classful networks
> 
> Of course it does, and it doees so correctly. 10.0.0.0/8 IS a class A
> network, 172.16.0.0/12 IS a group of 16 class B network and
> 192.168.0.0/16 is a group of 256 class C networks. an IP address
> belonging to a class is determined by the first bits. IP addresses
> starting with binary 00 and 01 belong to Class A networks
> (0.0.0.0-127.0.0.0), IP addresses starting with binary 10 belong to
> class B networks (128.0.0.0-191.255.0.0), and IP addresses starting
> with 110 belong to Class C networks (192.0.0.0-223.255.255.0). There
> used to be a class D (beginning with 111), but thankfully noone
> remembers that.
But you said there is no such thing as class A B or C, it's all classless..

Frankly arguing with you is pointless. You contradict yourself at every 
paragraph
>
> Marc

-- 
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale 
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain