Talk:CIDR notation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by Networking task force.
 

Omit trailing 0s[edit]

I will sometimes see trailing 0s omitted when CIDR notation is used to describe networks (as opposed to hosts) e.g. 192.168/22 instead of 192.168.0.0/22. Where does this come from? Is it accepted practice? Should it be mentioned in the article?

In my opinion it's not good practice, since I'm pretty sure that most routers wouldn't take it for input.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

beginning address of an entire network[edit]

I have seen people using any address, not just the beginning of the subnet, before the /; interchangeably with .0 or .whatever is the beginning I doubt there is much dispute that 192.168.0.0/24 is valid. But is 192.168.0.42/24? And if so, does it specify the same range of IPs? Or does it specify 192.168.0.42 through 192.168.1.42 or just thru .255? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.81.66 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.0.42/24 refer to the same network. The /24 indicates the first 24 bits (three octets) are used to indicate network address and the last eight bits indicate host address. The 192.168.0.42/24 approach would be most commonly used to indicate the subnet mask to be applied to the 192.168.0.42 address, 255.255.255.0 in this case. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Explanation[edit]

The article fails to explain what "prefix" means. It also brings in the subnet mask without expaining the association. This needs to be fixed in the first part of it. - KitchM (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)