.255 addresses still not usable after all these years?

Fri Jun 13 19:16:42 UTC 2008

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT, David Hubbard said:
> I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
> systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
> for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
> made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
> today.  From two of four ISP's it worked fine, from Verizon
> FIOS and Road Runner commercial, it didn't.  So I guess
> that old problem still lingers?

RFC1519 is 15 years old now.  I *still* heard a trainer (in a Cisco
class no less) mention class A/B/C in the last few months.  Some evil
will obviously take generations to fully stamp out.

Anybody from Verizon FIOS or RoadRunner care to explain why David is seeing
an issue in 2008?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080613/3992aa58/attachment.sig>