nanog mailing list archives
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
From: "Paul G" <paul () rusko us>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:04:41 -0400
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web () typo org> To: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net> Cc: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 11:01 PM Subject: Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
I can tell you that at least with my customers, the term "class C" is only used to clarify what is meant by "slash 24" and always with the phrase "is the equivilant to" And a bit surprisingly, I'm having to explain this less and less. Even the sales team is learning to speak CIDR. So there is indeed hope.
agreed. although, some customers are still dumb-founded when i tell them noone can give them a class C and offer a /24 instead =] paul
Current thread:
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses., (continued)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Petri Helenius (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen Sprunk (Jun 27)
- RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Chris Ranch (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 27)
- RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Tony Hain (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Bob Snyder (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Wayne E. Bouchard (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul G (Jun 26)
