[c-nsp] VLSM

[Stephen J. Wilcox]

bgp/eigrp: hence my pick on cisco in my original email altho these are now 
default no auto-summary afaik

ripv1 is the (rare) exception not the rule tho

Steve

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Brant I. Stevens wrote:

> While I agree that having no class (when talking about networking :B) is a
> good thing, "classfulness" is not completely dead...  Sometimes you still
> have to use RIP v1..  There's also EIGRP and BGP auto-summary using classful
> boundaries.
> 
> 
> On 01/10/2005 06:59 PM, "lists at hojmark.org" <lists at hojmark.org> wrote:
> 
> >> However, I can't get people (sales) to stop calling it "class c".
> > 
> > Even worse is when they (and some 'techs') call everything /24 a "class C"
> > and a every /16 a "class B", even when it's 10.10.10/24 and 10.10/16, for
> > example.
> > 
> > Yuck.
> > 
> > -A
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>