Re: First bit of IP Addresses

To: Anshul Jain <anjain at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: First bit of IP Addresses
From: James Aldridge <jhma at KPNQwest.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:43:32 +0100
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:57:07 PST." <20010201075707.20129.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com>
Sender: jhma at KPNQwest.net

Anshul Jain wrote:
> I am not clear in basics of ip address format, why we are not using the
> first bit as 0 to define new class of addresses, may this double the
> available IPs,

Hmmm... and why not call this new class of addresses "Class A"?

In the classful world:
	bit 1 = 0		-> Class A
	bits 1,2 = 10		-> Class B
	bits 1,2,3 = 110	-> Class C
	bits 1,2,3,4 = 1110	-> Class D (Multicast)
	etc.

James

Follow-Ups:
- Re: First bit of IP Addresses
  - From: Valdis . Kletnieks

References:
- First bit of IP Addresses
  - From: Anshul Jain

Prev by Date: First bit of IP Addresses
Next by Date: STD-2 is obsolete
Previous by thread: First bit of IP Addresses
Next by thread: Re: First bit of IP Addresses
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: First bit of IP Addresses

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.