[118155] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Tue Oct 13 08:23:10 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:22:26 -0400
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <76DC7E82-F237-4F3B-9F1F-51373CA42173@hopcount.ca>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ok, fair enough. I was working on the presumption not so much that it
was simpler but more than it provided a logical structure. Having some
framework to start with provides a base.
True that binary is binary is binary... But rather than just an
amorphous collection of x-number of bits, there's some initial rhyme and
reason. Explaining that, getting buy in, and understanding the
limitations therein will make the next progression to VLSM simpler to grasp.
At least in my opinion. :)
Scott
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2009-10-13, at 08:05, Scott Morris wrote:
>
>> While I may agree that teaching classful routing is stupid, the
>> addressing part lets people start getting the concept of binary.
>
> That's true of classless addressing, too. When students have problems
> with non-octet bit boundaries, that just means you start with mask
> lengths that are multiples of 8.
>
>> While
>> I'd love to think that people coming out of the school system have a
>> grasp of simple mathematical skills, more and more I'm finding that's
>> not the case. I wouldn't spend a LOT of time with it, and I certainly
>> wouldn't LEAVE at classful addressing, but it's a foundational step.
>>
>> Why is the presumption faulty?
>
> You were suggesting that classful addressing is reasonable to teach
> because it's simpler. It's not simpler, and in a modern-day context
> it's just wrong.
>
>
> Joe
>
