SMURF amplifier block list
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
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 baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
More information about the NANOG