[154689] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: job screening question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Sun Jul 8 15:24:13 2012
In-Reply-To: <2F83F98F-3EE4-480D-8470-2F92C5B04142@matthew.at>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 14:23:31 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7/8/12, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Randy <randy_94108@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> My response would be: Discontiguous subnet masks were allowed in the
>> pre-CIDR era. If you so desire, give me about 2 hours since I do not have
See, I would advocate using the filter questions for sorting the apps,
and tell the applicants "We're expecting a 5 words or less answer,
not a history lesson or technical explanation."; if more than 25%
of applicants out of say 1000 get it correct, then the filter is
considered valid, and the ones that pass the most filter questions
are the least likely to not be a waste of time.
I'm not sure which era exactly in which you consider it legal and
kosher to assign to a network, but even if you relax all the rules
that require contiguity, it is still an illegal network mask for end
hosts, just like 255.255.255.254 is; if an applicant doesn't flag it
out as bad/invalid subnet mask in this era, then they might fail the
filter,
even if they correctly observe that you can't fit that many hosts in.
>> a scientific calculator handy; and I will get back to you with the
>> complete-list.
A what?
>> Definitely not 5 words as required from the HR stand point. So I get
>> disqualified again!
>> ./Randy
> Oh, come on, 247 decimal is 0xf7... A single zero bit in the mask isn't
> enough for 12 hosts no matter where it is.
Correct... it's not even enough bits for 1 end host; it's enough bits for
1 broadcast address.
> If you need a scientific calculator and 2 hours for that, HR is right.
> Matthew Kaufman
> Sent from my iPad
--
-JH
