Comments on: The Why of Things http://churchofthegeek.com/2008/04/04/the-why-of-things/ Who shot who in the what now? Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:30:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: tyler http://churchofthegeek.com/2008/04/04/the-why-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-1060 tyler Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:33:21 +0000 http://churchofthegeek.com/?p=822#comment-1060 NEEEEEERRDD!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEEEEEERRDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

]]> By: gerry http://churchofthegeek.com/2008/04/04/the-why-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-958 gerry Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:35:02 +0000 http://churchofthegeek.com/?p=822#comment-958 More important is what you can explain by what exactly is the meaning of the why question. Is it only relevant to ask the why of events from intelligent free acting beings like presumably humans for an example, or is it also relevant to ask the why of events from non-intelligent entities like stones and presumably non-intelligent plants and animals? This is the question I like to read from you about, but you brought it up and never expatiate on it. Think about it and write about it again, this time more productively as to enlighten me on what is the why of things. And when you do, please notify me, gertes(at)hotmail.com. I just hope you don't disappoint me: the better part of intelligence is not only to ask questions but also and specially to attempt an explanation with one's intelligence and mastery of ideas and experiences of the world. gerry More important is what you can explain by what exactly is the meaning of the why question.

Is it only relevant to ask the why of events from intelligent free acting beings like presumably humans for an example, or is it also relevant to ask the why of events from non-intelligent entities like stones and presumably non-intelligent plants and animals?

This is the question I like to read from you about, but you brought it up and never expatiate on it.

Think about it and write about it again, this time more productively as to enlighten me on what is the why of things.

And when you do, please notify me, gertes(at)hotmail.com.

I just hope you don’t disappoint me: the better part of intelligence is not only to ask questions but also and specially to attempt an explanation with one’s intelligence and mastery of ideas and experiences of the world.

gerry

]]> By: Mike Neir http://churchofthegeek.com/2008/04/04/the-why-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-936 Mike Neir Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:11:16 +0000 http://churchofthegeek.com/?p=822#comment-936 More info if you want it.. While in the bathroom^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ my office, I was thinking about the logical stuff I was talking to you about. Here's the basic routing decision I hinted at: if ($IP logicalAND $SubnetMask) equals $NetworkAddress, then $IP is in the network defined by $NetworkAddress and a netmask of $SubnetMask. Routing priority (almost) always goes from the most specific choices that match the routing decision (those with the largest prefix numbers, and therefore the smaller subnets) to the least specific (smaller prefix numbers, larger networks). So if you're looking at a hypothetical routing table like so: 10.0.0.0/24 routes out eth0 10.0.0.0/16 routes out eth1 10.0.0.0/8 routes out eth2 default gateway 10.254.254.254, via eth2 If you wanted to route to 10.0.0.1, you'd have three options, but the path via eth0 would be chosen because it's most specific. If you wanted to route to 10.0.1.1, your eth0 path wouldn't match, so it would take eth1, because it's more specific than the eth2 path, even though both match. Trying route to 10.1.0.1 wouldn't match either eth0 or eth1's path, so eth2 would be chosen. Destinations that don't match any of the defined routes get tossed at the default gateway. There you go... More helpful information on how CIDR is useful. Not only does it define networks, but most (if not all) devices using TCP/IP use the CIDR calculations in routing decisions as well. More info if you want it.. While in the bathroom^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ my office, I was thinking about the logical stuff I was talking to you about. Here’s the basic routing decision I hinted at: if ($IP logicalAND $SubnetMask) equals $NetworkAddress, then $IP is in the network defined by $NetworkAddress and a netmask of $SubnetMask.

Routing priority (almost) always goes from the most specific choices that match the routing decision (those with the largest prefix numbers, and therefore the smaller subnets) to the least specific (smaller prefix numbers, larger networks). So if you’re looking at a hypothetical routing table like so:
10.0.0.0/24 routes out eth0
10.0.0.0/16 routes out eth1
10.0.0.0/8 routes out eth2
default gateway 10.254.254.254, via eth2

If you wanted to route to 10.0.0.1, you’d have three options, but the path via eth0 would be chosen because it’s most specific. If you wanted to route to 10.0.1.1, your eth0 path wouldn’t match, so it would take eth1, because it’s more specific than the eth2 path, even though both match. Trying route to 10.1.0.1 wouldn’t match either eth0 or eth1′s path, so eth2 would be chosen. Destinations that don’t match any of the defined routes get tossed at the default gateway.

There you go… More helpful information on how CIDR is useful. Not only does it define networks, but most (if not all) devices using TCP/IP use the CIDR calculations in routing decisions as well.

]]>