On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Nate Leon wrote:
Hmmm... so "64/8" would be valid ?
I'm not very comfortable with that.
I'm not happy about it either and always used full cidr notaation
(64.0.0.0/8) but 64/8 is unfortunetly a valid representation of cidr.
I've had discussions about it before year ago in regards to ip whois and
in the end a text was found from some old RFC which specified it.
I'll try to find those old emails and then post to the list.
I do note that since we do have classless cidr (RFC1519), old RFCs before
that may not be correct. At the same time RFC1519 is not exactly great
guide either as its using cisco-specific syntax.
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg/