On March 1st, 2013 Microsoft posted some guidance on Using IP Address Ranges as Boundaries in Configuration Manager. A day later, the community, and actual ConfigMgr customers started to question the validity of the post and whether or not Microsoft might actually use their own product.
It was met with comments like…
“This goes against the prevailing wisdom of this (community), including my own.”
“It is Microsoft’s own terminology that created the initial confusion around the importance of the subnet mask. That statement has never been clarified to my satisfaction.”
“The paragraph about subnet masks makes me think this person works in a Utopian environment. In the real world the mask doesn’t always match the subnet ID. I’m not saying that’s good practice but that’s the way it is.”
Your thoughts? As a customer community, we’ve always questioned the differences between the Microsoft way of doing things and the real-world way of doing things. Microsoft tends to develop products to work a specific way, however they don’t always work the way they were intended in the real world. Could this be another case of that? I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard from Microsoft “it’s not supposed to work that way”, followed by the customer saying, “maybe not, but it does, and we need it to.”
Read through the March 1st post and let me know your thoughts: When not to use IP Address Ranges as Boundaries in Configuration Manager