Talk:IPv4 subnetting reference

This article desperately needs attention from expert to address the following:

• Article has no introduction. Does not render it as a standard one for an encyclopedia.
• The contents are too terse and technical in nature.

Raanoo 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When is Classful not classy?

I recommend dropping the column "Classful Name" in the second table of this article.

Reason: It's true that Class A, B and C networks had default subnet masks of 8, 16 and 24 bits, and this is accurately captured in the first table. However, it is not true that a network of 8, 16, or 24 bits becomes a Class A, B or C network.

At my previous company we had a Class A network (47.0.0.0). We often created subnets with 24-bit masks, but that didn't make them Class C networks. Conversely, I might take my 192.168.0.0 address space at home and create a /16 network, but 192... remains a Class C, not Class B.

I regularly come across people who think a /24 means you have a Class C network. But the "Class" is determined by the first 4 bits in the address. This is clearly explained in the Wikipedia article "Classful network", and I've never heard it disputed by anyone who understood the background.

I believe the first table here illustrates very well the concept that Class A, B, C networks have default subnet masks. But I think the second table should not say that a /8 is a Class A, /16 a Class B, nor that /24 a Class C. The simple solution, as I said, is to remove that 5th column "Classful Name". It doesn't add any information that's not already found in the table above. And it's misleading the reader that way, at best. Arguably, it is outright incorrect.

Tomwikwiki (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the column is the best solution as classes don't exist any more anyways. Done! Kbrose (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)