Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
jgreco at ns.sol.net
Mon Oct 22 23:31:12 UTC 2012
> Ten year old equipment should be CIDR aware. It's not like it CIDR
> wasn't in wide spread using in 2002.
And BCP38 has had sufficient time to be globally deployed.
What's your point, again? ;-)
I was pretty careful in trying to outline that it's still expected
that there are defective products which even today will filter .0
and .255. This might be due to incompetence, or nobody having looked
at the code in a dozen years, or other various faults. There is no
central agency to validate gear against RFC, common use, and common
sense, and from what I hear, even Cisco has maintained "classful"
routing in useless contexts many years beyond what it should have.
The painful difference between "should be CIDR aware" (we agree on
this!) and "is actually CIDR compliant without amateur-hour mistakes"
is a measurable distance, even today.
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(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
More information about the NANOG