Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Kate Gerry Kate.Gerry at quadranet.com
Fri Dec 8 23:38:08 CST 2017


In this example only semi-new devices with current OSes are accessing 172.16.0.0, concerns over old devices or a BSD4.2 machine hitting it is highly unlikely.

To clarify Ryan's statement, the device in question is our software repository where we store OS software updates, for only recent versions of software, so it should not be an issue. Since we have multiple locations, and multiple software stores, we use 172.16.0.0 as the AnyCast address.

I am glad that we have been able to stir up such a discussion, Ryan and I had the same conversation here so I am glad that he brought it to the group.

--
Kate Gerry
Network & Facilities Director 
+1 (888) 578-2372 x206 / kate at quadranet.com 
QuadraNet, Inc. / Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud, QuadraNet Vest DDoS Protection
Datacenters in Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago & New Jersey


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Chase
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade themselves to a new firmware that the devs released posthaste to handle them properly...

I like your upgrade-by-force ideas! (no, I do. Screw bad implimentations, let them be binned!) (Tell me about your v6 adoption plans now.)

The Win95 thing was just a personal example of how these things can express themselves...  was a good laugh at the time. The incidence and hilarity of similar events has not materially changed in the intervening decades, we'll all note.

Have fun with your .0's people! Let us know how your support dept likes em.

/kc

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:47:09PM +0000, Job Snijders said:
  >On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase <math at sizone.org> wrote:
  >> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
  >>
  >> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.
  >>
  >>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
  >>
  >> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices
  >> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever collision
  >> avoidance, but relies on a prayer.
  >
  >Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR
  >addresses. :-)
  >
  >> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it
  >> used to lock the OS up.... fun times. Someone had pointed some popular domain
  >> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day
  >> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to
  >> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us
  >> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)
  >
  >Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001....
  >
  >Kind regards,
  >
  >Job

--
Ken Chase - Guelph Canada



More information about the NANOG mailing list