[arin-ppml] [a-p] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Cliff wrote:
> Michael Dillon wrote
>  
> .....>
>> If this ISP had non-VLSM gear, then a /16 would not work and
>> a class B address block would also not work. They would require
>> 200 or so class C blocks. You cannot subnet a class B address
>> block into smaller blocks. That's one benefit of VLSM where any
>> /16 can easily be subnetted into /24 blocks or any size you wish.
>  
> I'm pretty sure even my old Xenix system would subnet Class Bs down to a Class
> C.  Some of the older stuff wouldn't subnet a class C but almost everything
> could use the subnet mask so you could get 256 (254?) Class C subnets from a
> Class B.
>  
> see http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5033673.html
>  
>  
> Cliff

It's not that, it's that some of the older terminal server gear only
spoke RIP v1, which is classful.  I remember dealing with a pair of
US Robotics 8 port terminal servers that were like this.  This was
circa 1996, a lot younger than Xenix.

Ted