IP addresses on subnet edge (/24)

Tue Sep 15 06:31:14 UTC 2020

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:26 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also .0 and .1.
>
> Yes, there was some kind of a strange behavior with those addresses
> before.  We excluded those from rotation back in 2011 when that was really
> biting us.  There's an impression that this issue has become much less
> troubling over the years, didn't have time to investigate though.
>

Yep, I once had a customer (circa 2013–2014) who couldn't load
https://www.stgeorge.com.au/ because they (a PPP–based user, where
addressing is point to point, effectively /32 each end if you like) had an
IP address ending in .0, despite it being in the middle of an otherwise
larger pool. Some middlebox forming opinions about an address it has no
business forming an opinion about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200915/fa826d96/attachment.html>