Proposal for Temporary Special Class A Space Guidelines
Daniel Volar volar at alpha.dcs.fmph.uniba.sk
Thu Mar 6 02:10:02 CET 1997
hello mike, > > Good stuff! > > Yes indeed! me too. > > . I'm slightly unhappy with the frequent use of the terms "class A" and > > "class C". I think we are trying for a while now to sort of phase-out > > the usage of these terms. So I'd prefer to > > > > - clearly qualify the usage of these terms as obsolete, or "old > > classful terminology", > > > > - wherever possible, please replace "class x" with the appropriate > > address range. I think this would make the paper more obvious > > anyway. > > Not an easy one. Sure, you can put the offending terms in > quotes, as Wilfried does, to indicate disdain for this old > politically incorrect terminology. But there's no getting > away from the fact that when you say Class A in the document, > you really mean Class A and not /8 - you don't mean that > 18.104.22.168/8, for example, comes under the heading of Class A > for the purposes of special allocation. > > Instead of Class A, you could say "addresses in the range > 22.214.171.124 - 126.96.36.199" or something, but this could be > clumsy and why not use the term that means the same, anyway. i agree it's helluva clumsy and i've got an idea to use the (i think) easily understood term "traditional class A address space" which is meant as `all addresses in the range 188.8.131.52-184.108.40.206.' what's your opinion? > Cheers. > Mike cheerio, dinyl.
[ lir-wg Archives ]