shared-subnet for single subnet (Was: about concept "group", "shared-network", and "subnet", thanks.)

[Simon Hobson]

Stemen, Andrew Michael wrote:

>  > >It is my practice (and I recommend it to others) that every network
>>  >have a shared-network statement, simply for greater clarity, even if
>>  >there is only one subnet on that network.
>>
>>  I'll disagree there and suggest not using shared networks if you
>>  don't need them. It's another level of nesting to get confused over,
>>  and it's something else to confuse a novice admin that has to take
>>  over when you get knocked down by the proverbial bus.
>
>Would you consider my suggestion to be outright incorrect, or just
>personal preference?

Personal preference, there's no technical reason.

I'd argue that for most users, they haven't got shared-networks and 
it's cleaner to leave them out. Where you do use them, they stand out 
more by being different.
And it's less typing !

Like many things, not a matter of right or wrong, just different 
approaches to it.

-- 
Simon Hobson

Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.