Re: classful routes redux

[Randy Bush]

> I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy
> had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)

actually, bill and i disagreed.  this is not unusual :-)

>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:51 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> 	class A ==  /32
>>> 	class B ==  /48
>>> 	class C ==  /56
>>> 	hostroute == /64

and i:
>> I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C"
>> more or less interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us
>> still do that...
> well, now you can do it for /64s
> and class B can be /48s (or is it /56s?)
> and class A can be /32s

as, in the truely classful days, a lan was a C == /24, i'll
stick to my guns for the moment that a new C is a /64 and so
forth.

as there is no emoticon for sarcasm, the naive should know
that i (and maybe bill) draw this comparison to point out
that, by codifying such boundaries in technology and policy,
we're making the same old mistakes again.

randy