Re: Rose Tea

On 01 Dec 2003, Debbie Deutsch posted the following to 
rec.food.drink.tea:

> Derek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:Xns9444BDA4834CDdagwinn@
> 130.133.1.4:
> 
>> 
>> IF we take an example IP address of "111.222.333.444", the 
>> different numbers represent the following items.
>> 
>>          111 = major trunk network or primary network
>>          222 = main network
>>          333 = subnet on main network
>>          444 = specific machine.
>> 
> 
> Nope, sorry, that's wrong.  

Nope, sorry, it's not. It's extremely generalized and dumbed down. 
But it doesn't even conflict with what you've said below.

> (We are discussing my professional 
> specialty here.)  That's not even the way that the original class 
> system was envisioned, back 20 years ago.  IP addresses have a 
> two-part structure.  The first part identifies the network, the 
> second a number within the network.  The length of the first part 
> is pretty arbitrary.  Any structure in the second part is up to 
> the owner of the IP address block.  

Which pretty much says what I gave in the example. The first two 
numbers specify the network. The second two numbers specify a local 
machine. 

We had two PCs in our project office on campus.

        160.94.19.130           160.94.19.96

The first two sets of number specify our network, the third a 
"branch" (so to speak) and the last being the unique number of each 
PC. 

My example was horribly dumbed down and incomplete. It was a 
simplified example, kind of like the Bohr model of the atom - it's 
not really what an atom looks like, but it gives you an idea of how 
it works.

> Visit www.ietf.org and read 
> RFCs about CIDR for all the details.

The details - which is what I acknowledged I was leaving out from 
the beginning. 

But the point wasn't to go into all the details - which would 
probably bore everyone but you and me. It was to give an 
understandable example.

> If you got that from the Cisco web site, well, maybe that is the 
> problem.  I've heard too many versions of the story where Cisco 
> tells its customers that the Internet was invented to connect 
> LANs together.  They may be the biggest router vendor out there, 
> but that doesn't mean that everything they say is correct.

Possibly. But what they "offered" does not differ significantly 
from what I was told from the networking personnel at the 
University when I was working computer support - I probably annoyed 
them by asking a LOT of questions.

Then again, I haven't run a statistical test for significance - 
maybe it does differ. :)

-- 
Derek

Some people dream of success, while other people live to crush 
those dreams.