Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Job Snijders job at instituut.net
Fri Dec 8 20:13:54 CST 2017


On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 :)
>

It is 2017... if you encounter such platforms you take them out back and
“set them free”. :-)

We can, and must, expect CIDR compliance these days.

Kind regards,

Job


More information about the NANOG mailing list