The use of .0/.255 addresses.

Sun Jun 27 10:12:00 UTC 2004

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Various people I've asked about this have said they wouldn't use the .0
> or .255 addresses themselves, though couldn't present any concrete info
> about why not; my experience above would seem to suggest a reason not to
> use them.

This comes up every year or two on nanog; it's discouraging that operators
and/or vendors are still screwing this up over a decade after RFC 1519.

Thus spake "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras at e-gerbil.net>
> This is what happens when your educational system continues to teach
> classful routing as anything other than a HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE
> *coughCiscocough*. This is also how you end up with 76k /24s in the global
> routing table.

"Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."

> Do you part to help control the ignorant population: whenever you hear
> someone say "class [ABC]" in reference to anything other than a historical
> allocation, smack them. Hard.

It seems to be pretty common usage now to refer to a /24 as a "Class C",
regardless of the first octet.  Certainly incorrect, but half as many
syllables...

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov