Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
marka at isc.org
Mon Oct 22 23:19:11 UTC 2012
In message <201210222307.q9MN7AIv063740 at aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes:
> > d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you
> > should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N
> > AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a commercial IP mgm
> > t product and getting reports of M$ ISA proxy that is specifically blocking
> > traffic for an IP ending in .0 or .255.
> To make a long story short:
> If it's a product you're considering buying, problems with .0 and .255
> reflect on the competence of the product's designers. You can safely
> assume that there are many other Severely Broken Things too and move on
> to saner products.
> For general Internet use, there is a lot of gear out there that's ten or
> more years old. You should avoid using .0 and .255 addresses if you can
> avoid it, though it's a shame to waste valid IP space to accommodate the
> brokenness of someone else's stuff.
Ten year old equipment should be CIDR aware. It's not like it CIDR
wasn't in wide spread using in 2002.
> Some of us park stuff on .0 and .255 addresses in order to motivate
> others to change.
> ... JG
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CN
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG