Classful networking

Posted Feb 17, 2025 12:05 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Classful networking by draco
Parent article: Fighting the AI scraperbot scourge

What would that change? They are still teaching network using OSI model. Stillborn model for a stillborn set of protocols (are any of them still in use? I think Microsoft used X.500 which turned into LDAP later).

Compared to that attempt to “learn how airplane works using blueprints from a steam train” the fact that they also teach A/B/C networks is minor.

You have to forget most of what you were taught and relearn how things actually work when you get networking-related job, anyway.

Classful networking

Posted Feb 19, 2025 19:58 UTC (Wed) by antiphase (subscriber, #111993) [Link] (1 responses)

The problem is people continue to use and further teach what they've learned unless they are corrected. It would be great if people forgot more.

I've worked with and continue to work with otherwise competent network admins who continue to make references to classful networking despite not being old enough to remember it nor having an understanding what it really means besides some inadequate proxy for subnet size, which CIDR replaces far more usefully.

It's long past time for it to be put to bed.

Classful networking

Posted Feb 19, 2025 20:13 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> I've worked with and continue to work with otherwise competent network admins who continue to make references to classful networking

Are you really sure they refer to “classful networking”? In my experience for them “class C” is “network with /24 mask, that can be used with 192.168.x.0 or with 172.16.x.0” and “class B” is “network with /16 mask that needs 172.16.0.0 or 172.20.0.0, or maybe something in 10.x.0.0” while “class A” is “gagantic network, most likely 10.0.0.0” (the only one that may exist in such twisted world).

It's not related to “classful networking”, as it existed years ago… but not worse than craziness that we get when trying to invent 7 layers in a network that never had them.

> It would be great if people forgot more.

But they did! Problem is with you, not with them! They don't have any trouble understanding each other! Instead you are causing trouble when you bring things from an era long gone!

> It's long past time for it to be put to bed.

But why? Why remove useful term than helps in communication just because it's original meaning is no longer relevant?

One may as well [try to] attempt to ban use of “byte” as “8bit quanitity” – equally pointless and useless in a world where other kinds of “bytes” don't exist. Result would be the same: people would laugh at you and continue to use what is convenient for them.