Why is classful addressing considered waste?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am trying to understand the addressing strategies. But there is something which I can't grasp. Maybe I am missing a very basic point, if so, I am sorry beforehand.
From my researches, let's say, if a company wants 100,000 IP addresses for their network, Class C won't cut it since Class C can allocate 256 addresses. Same for Class B since it can allocate 65,536 addresses. So they were asking for Class A which can allocate 16,777,216 addresses but that would be a huge waste of IP addresses.
Now coming to my question. Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP address configured by a router? Let's say I have one router for an office in Istanbul which has 185.245.32.78 as the public IP address. All the computers in that office would have 192.168.xxx.xxx as private IP addresses. The same for other offices. I could use 20 different public IP addresses for other offices spreading around the world and have same private IP addresses behind a routers.
Doesn't this mean I could have many offices with networks with only Class C allocation?
ip ipv4 subnet internet ip-address
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am trying to understand the addressing strategies. But there is something which I can't grasp. Maybe I am missing a very basic point, if so, I am sorry beforehand.
From my researches, let's say, if a company wants 100,000 IP addresses for their network, Class C won't cut it since Class C can allocate 256 addresses. Same for Class B since it can allocate 65,536 addresses. So they were asking for Class A which can allocate 16,777,216 addresses but that would be a huge waste of IP addresses.
Now coming to my question. Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP address configured by a router? Let's say I have one router for an office in Istanbul which has 185.245.32.78 as the public IP address. All the computers in that office would have 192.168.xxx.xxx as private IP addresses. The same for other offices. I could use 20 different public IP addresses for other offices spreading around the world and have same private IP addresses behind a routers.
Doesn't this mean I could have many offices with networks with only Class C allocation?
ip ipv4 subnet internet ip-address
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am trying to understand the addressing strategies. But there is something which I can't grasp. Maybe I am missing a very basic point, if so, I am sorry beforehand.
From my researches, let's say, if a company wants 100,000 IP addresses for their network, Class C won't cut it since Class C can allocate 256 addresses. Same for Class B since it can allocate 65,536 addresses. So they were asking for Class A which can allocate 16,777,216 addresses but that would be a huge waste of IP addresses.
Now coming to my question. Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP address configured by a router? Let's say I have one router for an office in Istanbul which has 185.245.32.78 as the public IP address. All the computers in that office would have 192.168.xxx.xxx as private IP addresses. The same for other offices. I could use 20 different public IP addresses for other offices spreading around the world and have same private IP addresses behind a routers.
Doesn't this mean I could have many offices with networks with only Class C allocation?
ip ipv4 subnet internet ip-address
I am trying to understand the addressing strategies. But there is something which I can't grasp. Maybe I am missing a very basic point, if so, I am sorry beforehand.
From my researches, let's say, if a company wants 100,000 IP addresses for their network, Class C won't cut it since Class C can allocate 256 addresses. Same for Class B since it can allocate 65,536 addresses. So they were asking for Class A which can allocate 16,777,216 addresses but that would be a huge waste of IP addresses.
Now coming to my question. Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP address configured by a router? Let's say I have one router for an office in Istanbul which has 185.245.32.78 as the public IP address. All the computers in that office would have 192.168.xxx.xxx as private IP addresses. The same for other offices. I could use 20 different public IP addresses for other offices spreading around the world and have same private IP addresses behind a routers.
Doesn't this mean I could have many offices with networks with only Class C allocation?
ip ipv4 subnet internet ip-address
ip ipv4 subnet internet ip-address
edited Sep 16 at 16:40
Ron Maupinâ¦
56.8k953100
56.8k953100
asked Sep 15 at 21:49
HalilM
234
234
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You are confusing the typical home networking setup, which is off-topic here. with a business network. Many businesses have multiple services (often the same type of service provided by different servers), and they need public addressing for each server.
Under your example, a company with multiple web servers for different functions would have a single public address, and TCP port 80 (HTTP) for that single public address could only be forwarded to one of those servers.
The original premise of IP is that each host gets a unique address. The version of NAT (NAPT) that allows a network to hide behind a single public address only works with ICMP, TCP, and UDP. Other transport protocols are broken by NAPT, and even some application-layer protocols that use TCP or UDP are broken by NAPT.
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Network classes died 25 years ago when CIDR was introduced in 1993.
Classes were extremely wasteful because end user requirements needed to be rounded up to the next largest class. A requirement for 1,000 IP addresses was allocated a class B network, removing 65,536 addresses from the pool. That's a "waste" of 98%.
You can hide a lot of private IP addresses behind a single public address (or just a few addresses) if you just need client access. However, if you're planning to offer services to the public Internet you do need proper, public IPs.
Note that NAT was only defined in 1999, six years after CIDR. Without NAT, HTTP and other application-layer proxies need be used to provide private-to-public connectivity. Both NAT and proxies break the end-to-end paradigm of TCP/IP and can cause serious problems.
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
You bring up several different topics in one question ðÂÂÂ. Let me address them separately.
First, understand that classful addressing is obsolete and has been since before you were born. I donâÂÂt know why they still teach it, but itâÂÂs ancient history.
Second, what you say is theoretically possible, but thatâÂÂs not the way the Internet works.
YouâÂÂre describing Network Address Translation (NAT) which was developed to get around the lack of IPv4 addresses. You use private addresses inside your network and translate them to one or more public addresses. Typically those public addresses belong to your ISP who âÂÂrentsâ them to you. You can get âÂÂyour ownâ address space, but only if youâÂÂre a large organization - it's also expensive.
Internet service providers do not advertise networks smaller than /24 on the Internet, so your public addresses for all your offices will be part of your ISP addresses. If you have your own, you canâÂÂt advertise anything less than /24 or a block of 256 addresses.
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP configured by a router?
This is a set-up which became "normal" in the 1990s - maybe after the end of classful routing in 1993 or at the same time.
Before that time NAT was at least not common so each computer in the internet had its own public IP address!
So a company with 260 computers needed 260 public IP addresses.
With classless routing this actually means 512 public IP addresses; with classful routing this means 65536 public IP addresses.
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you're taking some kind of course where they teach you about network classes, you'll probably need to remember that stuff until you've passed. Apart from that: Forget about network classes, it hasn't been relevant for 25 years.
You're right in saying that simple offices don't need more than one public IP address. But the Internet contains both non-simple offices (the company I work for used to host test servers in our office in Copenhagen that had to be accessible to employees in Dubai) and networks that aren't offices.
And in the old days there were offices where every device had a public IP address (I managed such a net 16-18 years ago). It had some advantages and some disadvantages.
Another reason why offices aren't important in this regard: Simple offices often only need the IP address they get from their ISP, meaning they don't even affect the allocation the company might have.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In addition to the points others have mentioned, the classful system allocated the prefixes 0 through 127 as class A nets (and reserved 0 and 127), meaning that half of the address space was allocated to network sizes nobody actually needed, and therefore mostly wasted. Another quarter of the address space was class B nets, which were also bigger than (almost) anyone needed, and therefore also mostly wasted.
NAT has allowed more organizations (and individuals/families/etc) to fit in class C nets, but only one eighth of the address space was allocated as class C. So even after the NAT (and carrier-grade NAT, etc) became available, the classful system would still be enormously wasteful. In particular, it wouldn't have allowed us to pull back the old class A allocations, and reallocate them as more useful blocks.
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You are confusing the typical home networking setup, which is off-topic here. with a business network. Many businesses have multiple services (often the same type of service provided by different servers), and they need public addressing for each server.
Under your example, a company with multiple web servers for different functions would have a single public address, and TCP port 80 (HTTP) for that single public address could only be forwarded to one of those servers.
The original premise of IP is that each host gets a unique address. The version of NAT (NAPT) that allows a network to hide behind a single public address only works with ICMP, TCP, and UDP. Other transport protocols are broken by NAPT, and even some application-layer protocols that use TCP or UDP are broken by NAPT.
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You are confusing the typical home networking setup, which is off-topic here. with a business network. Many businesses have multiple services (often the same type of service provided by different servers), and they need public addressing for each server.
Under your example, a company with multiple web servers for different functions would have a single public address, and TCP port 80 (HTTP) for that single public address could only be forwarded to one of those servers.
The original premise of IP is that each host gets a unique address. The version of NAT (NAPT) that allows a network to hide behind a single public address only works with ICMP, TCP, and UDP. Other transport protocols are broken by NAPT, and even some application-layer protocols that use TCP or UDP are broken by NAPT.
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You are confusing the typical home networking setup, which is off-topic here. with a business network. Many businesses have multiple services (often the same type of service provided by different servers), and they need public addressing for each server.
Under your example, a company with multiple web servers for different functions would have a single public address, and TCP port 80 (HTTP) for that single public address could only be forwarded to one of those servers.
The original premise of IP is that each host gets a unique address. The version of NAT (NAPT) that allows a network to hide behind a single public address only works with ICMP, TCP, and UDP. Other transport protocols are broken by NAPT, and even some application-layer protocols that use TCP or UDP are broken by NAPT.
You are confusing the typical home networking setup, which is off-topic here. with a business network. Many businesses have multiple services (often the same type of service provided by different servers), and they need public addressing for each server.
Under your example, a company with multiple web servers for different functions would have a single public address, and TCP port 80 (HTTP) for that single public address could only be forwarded to one of those servers.
The original premise of IP is that each host gets a unique address. The version of NAT (NAPT) that allows a network to hide behind a single public address only works with ICMP, TCP, and UDP. Other transport protocols are broken by NAPT, and even some application-layer protocols that use TCP or UDP are broken by NAPT.
answered Sep 15 at 21:57
Ron Maupinâ¦
56.8k953100
56.8k953100
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
add a comment |Â
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
Nat can work fine for other protocols too, it depends on the network equipment. I have sctp NAT running.
â PlasmaHH
Sep 16 at 20:15
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
@PlasmaHH, the RFC specifies only ICMP, TCP, and UDP, and identifies this as a weakness of NAPT. If the device supports other transport protocols, it is non-standard.
â Ron Maupinâ¦
Sep 16 at 22:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Network classes died 25 years ago when CIDR was introduced in 1993.
Classes were extremely wasteful because end user requirements needed to be rounded up to the next largest class. A requirement for 1,000 IP addresses was allocated a class B network, removing 65,536 addresses from the pool. That's a "waste" of 98%.
You can hide a lot of private IP addresses behind a single public address (or just a few addresses) if you just need client access. However, if you're planning to offer services to the public Internet you do need proper, public IPs.
Note that NAT was only defined in 1999, six years after CIDR. Without NAT, HTTP and other application-layer proxies need be used to provide private-to-public connectivity. Both NAT and proxies break the end-to-end paradigm of TCP/IP and can cause serious problems.
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Network classes died 25 years ago when CIDR was introduced in 1993.
Classes were extremely wasteful because end user requirements needed to be rounded up to the next largest class. A requirement for 1,000 IP addresses was allocated a class B network, removing 65,536 addresses from the pool. That's a "waste" of 98%.
You can hide a lot of private IP addresses behind a single public address (or just a few addresses) if you just need client access. However, if you're planning to offer services to the public Internet you do need proper, public IPs.
Note that NAT was only defined in 1999, six years after CIDR. Without NAT, HTTP and other application-layer proxies need be used to provide private-to-public connectivity. Both NAT and proxies break the end-to-end paradigm of TCP/IP and can cause serious problems.
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Network classes died 25 years ago when CIDR was introduced in 1993.
Classes were extremely wasteful because end user requirements needed to be rounded up to the next largest class. A requirement for 1,000 IP addresses was allocated a class B network, removing 65,536 addresses from the pool. That's a "waste" of 98%.
You can hide a lot of private IP addresses behind a single public address (or just a few addresses) if you just need client access. However, if you're planning to offer services to the public Internet you do need proper, public IPs.
Note that NAT was only defined in 1999, six years after CIDR. Without NAT, HTTP and other application-layer proxies need be used to provide private-to-public connectivity. Both NAT and proxies break the end-to-end paradigm of TCP/IP and can cause serious problems.
Network classes died 25 years ago when CIDR was introduced in 1993.
Classes were extremely wasteful because end user requirements needed to be rounded up to the next largest class. A requirement for 1,000 IP addresses was allocated a class B network, removing 65,536 addresses from the pool. That's a "waste" of 98%.
You can hide a lot of private IP addresses behind a single public address (or just a few addresses) if you just need client access. However, if you're planning to offer services to the public Internet you do need proper, public IPs.
Note that NAT was only defined in 1999, six years after CIDR. Without NAT, HTTP and other application-layer proxies need be used to provide private-to-public connectivity. Both NAT and proxies break the end-to-end paradigm of TCP/IP and can cause serious problems.
edited Sep 16 at 10:27
answered Sep 15 at 21:57
Zac67
20.4k21047
20.4k21047
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
add a comment |Â
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
The general problem is of course exactly as you say. But I certainly remember allocations of multiple class C blocks rather than a class B long before CIDR was universal, though of course this had impact on size of routing tables.
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
You bring up several different topics in one question ðÂÂÂ. Let me address them separately.
First, understand that classful addressing is obsolete and has been since before you were born. I donâÂÂt know why they still teach it, but itâÂÂs ancient history.
Second, what you say is theoretically possible, but thatâÂÂs not the way the Internet works.
YouâÂÂre describing Network Address Translation (NAT) which was developed to get around the lack of IPv4 addresses. You use private addresses inside your network and translate them to one or more public addresses. Typically those public addresses belong to your ISP who âÂÂrentsâ them to you. You can get âÂÂyour ownâ address space, but only if youâÂÂre a large organization - it's also expensive.
Internet service providers do not advertise networks smaller than /24 on the Internet, so your public addresses for all your offices will be part of your ISP addresses. If you have your own, you canâÂÂt advertise anything less than /24 or a block of 256 addresses.
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
You bring up several different topics in one question ðÂÂÂ. Let me address them separately.
First, understand that classful addressing is obsolete and has been since before you were born. I donâÂÂt know why they still teach it, but itâÂÂs ancient history.
Second, what you say is theoretically possible, but thatâÂÂs not the way the Internet works.
YouâÂÂre describing Network Address Translation (NAT) which was developed to get around the lack of IPv4 addresses. You use private addresses inside your network and translate them to one or more public addresses. Typically those public addresses belong to your ISP who âÂÂrentsâ them to you. You can get âÂÂyour ownâ address space, but only if youâÂÂre a large organization - it's also expensive.
Internet service providers do not advertise networks smaller than /24 on the Internet, so your public addresses for all your offices will be part of your ISP addresses. If you have your own, you canâÂÂt advertise anything less than /24 or a block of 256 addresses.
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
You bring up several different topics in one question ðÂÂÂ. Let me address them separately.
First, understand that classful addressing is obsolete and has been since before you were born. I donâÂÂt know why they still teach it, but itâÂÂs ancient history.
Second, what you say is theoretically possible, but thatâÂÂs not the way the Internet works.
YouâÂÂre describing Network Address Translation (NAT) which was developed to get around the lack of IPv4 addresses. You use private addresses inside your network and translate them to one or more public addresses. Typically those public addresses belong to your ISP who âÂÂrentsâ them to you. You can get âÂÂyour ownâ address space, but only if youâÂÂre a large organization - it's also expensive.
Internet service providers do not advertise networks smaller than /24 on the Internet, so your public addresses for all your offices will be part of your ISP addresses. If you have your own, you canâÂÂt advertise anything less than /24 or a block of 256 addresses.
You bring up several different topics in one question ðÂÂÂ. Let me address them separately.
First, understand that classful addressing is obsolete and has been since before you were born. I donâÂÂt know why they still teach it, but itâÂÂs ancient history.
Second, what you say is theoretically possible, but thatâÂÂs not the way the Internet works.
YouâÂÂre describing Network Address Translation (NAT) which was developed to get around the lack of IPv4 addresses. You use private addresses inside your network and translate them to one or more public addresses. Typically those public addresses belong to your ISP who âÂÂrentsâ them to you. You can get âÂÂyour ownâ address space, but only if youâÂÂre a large organization - it's also expensive.
Internet service providers do not advertise networks smaller than /24 on the Internet, so your public addresses for all your offices will be part of your ISP addresses. If you have your own, you canâÂÂt advertise anything less than /24 or a block of 256 addresses.
edited Sep 16 at 16:18
Peter Mortensen
1395
1395
answered Sep 15 at 22:14
Ron Trunk
31.7k22668
31.7k22668
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
add a comment |Â
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
"but only if youâÂÂre a large organization" - or if you were in the early days, when they were handing out /8s like Halloween candy to random orgs that had no business owning a /8.
â Kevin
Sep 16 at 17:19
1
1
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
@Kevin In the early days, the Internet was just an experimental curiosity, so why not hand out /8s?
â Ron Trunk
Sep 16 at 17:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP configured by a router?
This is a set-up which became "normal" in the 1990s - maybe after the end of classful routing in 1993 or at the same time.
Before that time NAT was at least not common so each computer in the internet had its own public IP address!
So a company with 260 computers needed 260 public IP addresses.
With classless routing this actually means 512 public IP addresses; with classful routing this means 65536 public IP addresses.
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP configured by a router?
This is a set-up which became "normal" in the 1990s - maybe after the end of classful routing in 1993 or at the same time.
Before that time NAT was at least not common so each computer in the internet had its own public IP address!
So a company with 260 computers needed 260 public IP addresses.
With classless routing this actually means 512 public IP addresses; with classful routing this means 65536 public IP addresses.
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP configured by a router?
This is a set-up which became "normal" in the 1990s - maybe after the end of classful routing in 1993 or at the same time.
Before that time NAT was at least not common so each computer in the internet had its own public IP address!
So a company with 260 computers needed 260 public IP addresses.
With classless routing this actually means 512 public IP addresses; with classful routing this means 65536 public IP addresses.
Don't all computers in a company reside behind a public IP configured by a router?
This is a set-up which became "normal" in the 1990s - maybe after the end of classful routing in 1993 or at the same time.
Before that time NAT was at least not common so each computer in the internet had its own public IP address!
So a company with 260 computers needed 260 public IP addresses.
With classless routing this actually means 512 public IP addresses; with classful routing this means 65536 public IP addresses.
answered Sep 16 at 5:16
Martin Rosenau
5055
5055
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
add a comment |Â
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
2
2
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
Depending on regional addressing policies at a particular time, a 260 requirement might well have had two class C blocks allocated. "Public IP address" was the only kind before RFC 1597 in 1994 (ignoring loopback etc).
â jonathanjo
Sep 16 at 11:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you're taking some kind of course where they teach you about network classes, you'll probably need to remember that stuff until you've passed. Apart from that: Forget about network classes, it hasn't been relevant for 25 years.
You're right in saying that simple offices don't need more than one public IP address. But the Internet contains both non-simple offices (the company I work for used to host test servers in our office in Copenhagen that had to be accessible to employees in Dubai) and networks that aren't offices.
And in the old days there were offices where every device had a public IP address (I managed such a net 16-18 years ago). It had some advantages and some disadvantages.
Another reason why offices aren't important in this regard: Simple offices often only need the IP address they get from their ISP, meaning they don't even affect the allocation the company might have.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you're taking some kind of course where they teach you about network classes, you'll probably need to remember that stuff until you've passed. Apart from that: Forget about network classes, it hasn't been relevant for 25 years.
You're right in saying that simple offices don't need more than one public IP address. But the Internet contains both non-simple offices (the company I work for used to host test servers in our office in Copenhagen that had to be accessible to employees in Dubai) and networks that aren't offices.
And in the old days there were offices where every device had a public IP address (I managed such a net 16-18 years ago). It had some advantages and some disadvantages.
Another reason why offices aren't important in this regard: Simple offices often only need the IP address they get from their ISP, meaning they don't even affect the allocation the company might have.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
If you're taking some kind of course where they teach you about network classes, you'll probably need to remember that stuff until you've passed. Apart from that: Forget about network classes, it hasn't been relevant for 25 years.
You're right in saying that simple offices don't need more than one public IP address. But the Internet contains both non-simple offices (the company I work for used to host test servers in our office in Copenhagen that had to be accessible to employees in Dubai) and networks that aren't offices.
And in the old days there were offices where every device had a public IP address (I managed such a net 16-18 years ago). It had some advantages and some disadvantages.
Another reason why offices aren't important in this regard: Simple offices often only need the IP address they get from their ISP, meaning they don't even affect the allocation the company might have.
If you're taking some kind of course where they teach you about network classes, you'll probably need to remember that stuff until you've passed. Apart from that: Forget about network classes, it hasn't been relevant for 25 years.
You're right in saying that simple offices don't need more than one public IP address. But the Internet contains both non-simple offices (the company I work for used to host test servers in our office in Copenhagen that had to be accessible to employees in Dubai) and networks that aren't offices.
And in the old days there were offices where every device had a public IP address (I managed such a net 16-18 years ago). It had some advantages and some disadvantages.
Another reason why offices aren't important in this regard: Simple offices often only need the IP address they get from their ISP, meaning they don't even affect the allocation the company might have.
edited Sep 16 at 16:18
Peter Mortensen
1395
1395
answered Sep 16 at 0:07
Henrik
1193
1193
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In addition to the points others have mentioned, the classful system allocated the prefixes 0 through 127 as class A nets (and reserved 0 and 127), meaning that half of the address space was allocated to network sizes nobody actually needed, and therefore mostly wasted. Another quarter of the address space was class B nets, which were also bigger than (almost) anyone needed, and therefore also mostly wasted.
NAT has allowed more organizations (and individuals/families/etc) to fit in class C nets, but only one eighth of the address space was allocated as class C. So even after the NAT (and carrier-grade NAT, etc) became available, the classful system would still be enormously wasteful. In particular, it wouldn't have allowed us to pull back the old class A allocations, and reallocate them as more useful blocks.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In addition to the points others have mentioned, the classful system allocated the prefixes 0 through 127 as class A nets (and reserved 0 and 127), meaning that half of the address space was allocated to network sizes nobody actually needed, and therefore mostly wasted. Another quarter of the address space was class B nets, which were also bigger than (almost) anyone needed, and therefore also mostly wasted.
NAT has allowed more organizations (and individuals/families/etc) to fit in class C nets, but only one eighth of the address space was allocated as class C. So even after the NAT (and carrier-grade NAT, etc) became available, the classful system would still be enormously wasteful. In particular, it wouldn't have allowed us to pull back the old class A allocations, and reallocate them as more useful blocks.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
In addition to the points others have mentioned, the classful system allocated the prefixes 0 through 127 as class A nets (and reserved 0 and 127), meaning that half of the address space was allocated to network sizes nobody actually needed, and therefore mostly wasted. Another quarter of the address space was class B nets, which were also bigger than (almost) anyone needed, and therefore also mostly wasted.
NAT has allowed more organizations (and individuals/families/etc) to fit in class C nets, but only one eighth of the address space was allocated as class C. So even after the NAT (and carrier-grade NAT, etc) became available, the classful system would still be enormously wasteful. In particular, it wouldn't have allowed us to pull back the old class A allocations, and reallocate them as more useful blocks.
In addition to the points others have mentioned, the classful system allocated the prefixes 0 through 127 as class A nets (and reserved 0 and 127), meaning that half of the address space was allocated to network sizes nobody actually needed, and therefore mostly wasted. Another quarter of the address space was class B nets, which were also bigger than (almost) anyone needed, and therefore also mostly wasted.
NAT has allowed more organizations (and individuals/families/etc) to fit in class C nets, but only one eighth of the address space was allocated as class C. So even after the NAT (and carrier-grade NAT, etc) became available, the classful system would still be enormously wasteful. In particular, it wouldn't have allowed us to pull back the old class A allocations, and reallocate them as more useful blocks.
edited Sep 16 at 22:42
answered Sep 16 at 21:21
Gordon Davisson
1363
1363
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53284%2fwhy-is-classful-addressing-considered-waste%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password