--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:03:27AM -0800, Cliff Wright wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:14:09 +0100
> Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>=20
> > non-contiguous
> > netmask, which is perfectly legal
> Not since Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). I think rfc's 1518, 1519.

Well, obviously the public part of your network must have a contiguous
netmask to connect to the outside world, which is all that CIDR is about.

What you do intra-domain is your own business if you find a routing=20
protocol that can handle that (e.g., static routing tables). In fact
non-contiguous netmasks only serve to abbreviate 2^n routes for what
nowadays would be called some special cases of stupid internal numbering...=
=20

I wouldn't advocate it, but to call it illegal is exaggerated.

Regards,
	-is

--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQEVAgUBQ9Xo0TCn4om+4LhpAQEeegf/axYv+fPi2EVV97NnVteVrQ3pCYlFMkNR
Y+V94ujRsinzzXOxtS1ILKSZu83iXL43I/1jzNlDWKK0O4hELziBo+Y1mnfVSorO
dlg7R4o4s5tVtFgkWmDFK8J1pYwt605t648/Z7AvLuYSDCFbCIEXmd669PrkTPGE
I5Ihx/lddN+sczvqpo64NQhou2tKKNEV50qDZ2YS92eBrn9CNMzpNAHJ1UySXOF1
2X4rbosGaz4vJ+SqMee+FKC1MRgMwS74KpsS2YbKqPkDUE/yQhxxfx7hrS6PQAbN
jx8MXkC7jhUIrSlrs2qACv/iM3sGui3zwt9vqQECAUxDlY5ncVwQoA==
=Pb0X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q--