Re: Rose Tea

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when Debbie Deutsch
stepped up to the microphone and muttered: 

> An accurate, simple explanation would have said there are two
> parts to an address, that the first part identifies a network,
> the second part identifies a computer or other system attached
> to the network, and that there's nothing to do with geography in
> the way network addresses are structured.

What you wrote above explains the who thing better than my example 
did anyway.

> What was incorrect about your "simple" explanation was that you
> added details that are not generally true.  

At the risk of being contrary, not "generally true" does not equate 
with "wrong."

> If you had said that it was
> an example of how network addresses could be allocated, that
> other ways were possible, and that allocation is different from
> the two-part structure that the router sees, that would have
> been correct, if not necessarily simple.  

It was AN example, but inclusive of all. I thought that was clear - 
obviously it was not. It was never intended to be a definitive 
description of IP allocation. Just one example of many.

Lack of clarity on my part - or rather, lack of specificity.

Derek


-- 
Derek

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate 
each other.