Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

• Previous message (by thread): Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Next message (by thread): Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Le Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:08:43PM -0800, William Herrin a écrit :
> I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility
> concerns with 1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory. 

Perhaps not the whole /8 but definitely some buggy implementations :
https://seclists.org/nanog/2018/Apr/52

• Previous message (by thread): Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Next message (by thread): Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]