Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
darrenoc at outlook.com
Tue Oct 23 20:07:58 UTC 2012
I purposely assigned myself a .0 and never had a problem using anything online, or going anywhere
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:00:53 +0200
> From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
> To: job at instituut.net
> Subject: Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
> CC: nanog at nanog.org
> * Job Snijders
> > In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP
> > addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I
> > understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel
> > situation. Ok, enough snarkyness!
> > Quite recently a participant of the NLNOG RING had a problem related
> > to an .255 IP address. You can read more about it here:
> > https://ring.nlnog.net/news/2012/10/ring-success-the-ipv4-255-problem/
> AIUI, that particular problem couldn't be blamed on lack of CIDR support
> either, as 184.108.40.206 is (was) a class A address. It would have had
> to be 220.127.116.11 or 18.104.22.168 for it to be special in the classful
> pre-CIDR world.
> That said, it's rather common for people to believe that a /24 anywhere
> in the IPv4 address space is a «class C» so I'm not really surprised.
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
More information about the NANOG