.255 addresses still not usable after all these years?

Peter Dambier peter at peter-dambier.de
Fri Jun 13 22:09:10 UTC 2008

I have had a look into the manuals of my ISP's routers.

Those boxes can think in /24 only. The split whatever you
have down to several /24 and reserve both .0 and .255 in
each of them.

I have seen both .0 and .255 in the WLAN behind NAT working
but you have to ifconfig the interface via telnet. The
html configuration wont allow to do it.

Kind regards

David Andersen wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> not from either, and hopefully david will follow back up with some of
>> his findings, but.. I'd bet dollars to donuts it's the ultra-crappy
>> CPE both vendors ship :(
>> go-go-actiontec (vol sends those out, god do they suck...)
> Or leftover filters from before 'no ip directed-broadcast'
> in the days of Smurf attacks.
>   -Dave

Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de

More information about the NANOG mailing list