Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 20:09:57 CST 2017


On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:

> Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
> (/32 or /128).
>

note that in times past (perhaps even now marked historical) there were
platforms which got unhappy with network/broadcast addresses being used as
host addresses...

At least some windows platforms balked at .0 or .255 host addresses (even
if that address was 'off-net' from them).

maybe this is all history though :)


More information about the NANOG mailing list