Talk:Classless Inter-Domain Routing

Confusion

How in the heck did I interpret 4 minutes as 3 months??!? - Lucky13pjn 19:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Host Identifier: Contradictory Claim

Host identifier is defined as the least significant bits in an IP address following the network prefix bit (which are the most significant bits).

"IP addresses are described as consisting of two groups of bits in the address: the most significant bits are the network prefix, which identifies a whole network or subnet, and the least significant set forms the host identifier, which specifies a particular interface of a host on that network."

"An IP address is interpreted as composed of two parts: a network-identifying prefix followed by a host identifier within that network."

"An address was considered to be the combination of an 8, 16, or 24-bit network prefix along with a 24, 16, or 8-bit host identifier respectively."

etc.

Under "CIDR notation" the following is simply confusing, "The IP address is expressed according to the standards of IPv4 or IPv6. The address may denote a single, distinct interface address or the beginning address of an entire network. The aggregation of these bits is often called the host identifier."

This statement goes from talking about an IP address, which includes all the bits, to making the statement that "The aggregation of these bits is often call the host identifier." The way I read that is that all the bits in an IP address aggregated together are called the host identifier. This is obviously at odds with the definition of and other uses of "host identifier".

In fact, this contradictory sentence about the host identifier seems to be entirely unnecessary for the paragraph to make it's point. Host identifier is already defined, there'e little value in defining it again. Awisemanwillhear (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kbrose: You modified the wording in question on July 2015 resulting in The aggregation of these bits is often called the host identifier. Perhaps that sentence should be removed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparing the diff you presented with the current, indeed faulty text reveals that someone else must have jumbled the text later without reading everything for coherence. I reverted to previous prose with some copyediting. Kbrose (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm thinking about code at the moment and didn't really absorb what was going on here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC links

RFC links seems broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XP 2600 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@XP 2600: Please quote some text from the article that we can search for to identify which link has a problem. This example seems to work: RFC 1518. By the way, click "new section" (might be "+" for you) at the top of the page to start a new topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!, and sorry for late reply! XP_2600 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

internet history timeline

internet history timeline at top of page does nothing to contribute to this article other than take up too much space 67.183.216.182 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request June 2026

I have a conflict of interest because I maintain the linked Swift projects. I would like an uninvolved editor to consider adding these external links to the "External links" section. They are open-source Swift implementations related to CIDR address modeling and CIDR range summarization.

Proposed addition:

• swift-cidr - Swift package providing value-semantic CIDR address, prefix-length, network, and endpoint types.
• cidrwalk - Swift command-line example demonstrating CIDR range summarization using swift-cidr.

If editors consider two links excessive, adding only the swift-cidr link would also be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camunro (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done External links should usually not be to the same website, so only one should be linked if one is to be. I think the GitHub link fails WP:External links#What to link guideline of being accessible to the reader - though if there is precedent of linking GitHub pages, then I will make the change. Thanks, Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I've done} 01:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)