Did Internap lose all clue?

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Thu Oct 20 20:08:40 CDT 2011


On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:39:51 CDT, Jack Bates said:
> On 10/20/2011 4:03 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
> > "You should expect<our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our
> > prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network
> > interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"

> Honestly, though. Can you blame them in this case? Given the lack of 
> insight into your network, I also might question your numbering system 

Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255.  

But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is
demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge.  There's several totally legal .0
and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets.
Unfortunately, we're still stuck with  "Don't use .0 or .255, because there are
*still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"...

What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly
via the code they write... ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111020/ffec3fc1/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list