Re: Arguing against using public IP space

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com () nanog org  Sun Nov 13 14:15:38 2011
> From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:13:37 -0500
> Subject: Re: Arguing against using public IP space
> To: nanog () nanog org
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bonomi
> <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:36:43 -0500, Jason Lewis <jlewis () packetnexus com> wrote;
> > > http://www.redtigersecurity.com/security-briefings/2011/9/16/scada-vendors-use-public-routable-ip-addresses-by-default.html
> >
> > Any article that claims a /12 is a 'class B', and a /16 is a 'Class C', is
> > DEFINITELY 'flawed'.
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Give the chart a second look. 192.168.0.0/16 (one of the three RFC1918
> spaces) is, in fact, a /16 of IPv4 address space and it is, in fact,
> found in the old "class C" range. Ditto 172.16.0.0/12. If there's a
> nitpick, the author should have labeled the column something like
> "classful area" instead of "classful description."

In the 'classful' world, neither the /12 or the /16 spaces were referencble
as a single object.  Correct 'classful descriptions' would have been:
        "16 contiguous Class 'B's"
       "256 contiguous Class 'C's"