Talk:CIDR notation

Omit trailing 0s
I will sometimes see trailing 0s omitted when CIDR notation is used to describe networks (as opposed to hosts) e.g. 192.168/22 instead of 192.168.0.0/22. Where does this come from? Is it accepted practice? Should it be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 12:49, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's not good practice, since I'm pretty sure that most routers wouldn't take it for input.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

beginning address of an entire network
I have seen people using any address, not just the beginning of the subnet, before the /; interchangeably with .0 or .whatever is the beginning I doubt there is much dispute that 192.168.0.0/24 is valid. But is 192.168.0.42/24? And if so, does it specify the same range of IPs? Or does it specify 192.168.0.42 through 192.168.1.42 or just thru .255? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.81.66 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.0.42/24 refer to the same network. The /24 indicates the first 24 bits (three octets) are used to indicate network address and the last eight bits indicate host address.  The 192.168.0.42/24 approach would be most commonly used to indicate the subnet mask to be applied to the 192.168.0.42 address, 255.255.255.0 in this case. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Explanation
The article fails to explain what "prefix" means. It also brings in the subnet mask without expaining the association. This needs to be fixed in the first part of it. - KitchM (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)