tech-net archive   Re: 16 year old bug      Date:        Mon, 23
Aug 2010 21:46:16 -0400 (EDT)     Message-ID:
<201008240146.VAA08612%Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>
| I wouldn't say _nothing_.  See below.  That's why I said
"essentially nothing" - for your two /29's, you must have had a
max of 14 hosts.   You could have renumbered those in less than
half an hour, even if you had to manually do it to every one.
While that's not nothing, it is close enough... (essentially
nothing).   The real benefit of this scheme was for big nets
with hundreds or thousands of hosts that would need to be
renumbered - but for them, they're almost certainly going to be
forced into the renumber path, due to having some hosts that
just don't support non-contig masks, so in the place where the
benefit really should exist, it generally turns out to be
illusory,    | Irrelevant.  Nobody off-network can tell whether
I'm using   | noncontiguous netmasks within my network, so
nobody but my   | co-administrators has standi