nanog mailing list archives
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:43:23 +0200
This is what happens when your educational system continues to teach classful routing as anything other than a HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE *coughCiscocough*.
Yes, it sure would be nice if Cisco would revise some of their CCNA course material and exams. Plenty of classful stuff still left there, I'm afraid. It's kind of stupid when you have to tell fellow workers trying to get a certification "This isn't real life, you just have to learn it for the exam. In real life we use CIDR." Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no
Current thread:
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses., (continued)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jon Lewis (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. william(at)elan.net (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Howard C. Berkowitz (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. sthaug (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Petri Helenius (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen Sprunk (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 27)
- RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Tony Hain (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Bob Snyder (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Wayne E. Bouchard (Jun 26)