Did Internap lose all clue?
jbates at brightok.net
Fri Oct 21 01:16:13 UTC 2011
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> 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,
Yeah, I quit using them in '98ish and never bothered trying again. Was
annoying the first time I realized the dialup user wasn't working
because they had a .0 or .255 address from the pool.
Of course, I've had more calls from people asking why they don't work
when they aren't supposed to work. :)
> 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... ;)
Yeah, but at 2-4 addresses per /24, I really can't be bothered to yell
at the coders. Easier to just not use them.
More information about the NANOG