SMURF amplifier block list

Jay R. Ashworth jra at
Tue Apr 14 20:59:41 UTC 1998

On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 04:00:33PM -0400, Charley Kline wrote:
> > No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if
> > you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may
> > break, and you deserve what you get.
> > Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or
> > experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of
> > less than 1% of usable address space.

Watch your quoting, Charley; I said the first thing; someone else the

> What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking
> perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains
> for a proper solution?

The problem is one of leverage, Charley.  If I do assign .255 to a
host, then I'm at the mercey of the entire friggin Internet.  If I
_don't_... then I'm in control.

Yes, it's ugly, but (as they used to say in the navy) "that's fine
sonny, but this here's the Fleet."

> Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a
> quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255
> addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply
> say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated
> classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless.
> We all said so.

Welcome to the real world.  Not everyone has those "you must be this
tall to ride this ride" signs on their downlinks.  Sorry.

-- jr "it's rarely productive to argue with the weather" a
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "Two words: Darth Doogie."  -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida             on             +1 813 790 7592

Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------

More information about the NANOG mailing list