Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
mike at mikejones.in
Tue Oct 23 15:18:43 UTC 2012
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw <laidlaw at consecro.com> wrote:
> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
a valid address on a remote network? if you have a route to it then it
is a valid address that you should be able to exchange packets with,
any assumptions beyond that are almost certainly going to be wrong
Even if they did happen to correctly guess what sized subnets a remote
network is using and what type of access media that remote network is
using, I am pretty sure it would be wrong to assume that these
addresses can't be accessed remotely considering the only address that
is currently defined :)
I really hope this is down to some kind of bug and not something
someone did deliberately.
More information about the NANOG