Interesting enough at work we recently had a customer call in an issue in using one specific host address on the /16 block they own(lease).
Let's say they have 172.16.0.0/16, in which case they perform no subnetting ( I don't know why?) using the classful mask. In doing this there are a number of host on the 172.16.X.0 host address. The interesting thing to note is that there aren't any issues with accessing the web, and just about any other service at this point, however these host(on the .0) cannot access a remedy application server housed on an NT/2000 box. The user is BGP peered to our network. They're internal network uses static defaults routes to the external BGP connected device. The destination network is a switched network and has no routing devices with the exception of their logical(vlan'd) interface on one of our access devices. My question is does anyone know or can point me to a source that can confirm if Micro$oft's devices has an issue with routing the .0 addresses, or could this problem be application specific. Has anyone had to address this problem in the past? TIA Nigel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: RE: private addressing [7:49083] > At 9:08 PM +0000 7/18/02, cebuano wrote: > >Howard, > >Since 192.168/16 is supposedly Class C, can you tell me why if I > >configure RIPv1 it allows me to configure "network 192.168.0.0" instead > >of giving me an error? > > The traditional class C space began with 192/8, of which 192.168/16 > is a part. I'm puzzled by your comment, since I generally use > 192.168.0.0/24 for /30 serial links when I write scenarios, and never > have any problem. > > There's no formal relationship between RIPv1 and RFC1918 addressing; > RIPv1 long preceded private addressing. According to the IETF, RIPv1 > is in "Historic" status, or considered obsolete. > > >I've tested it and of course it does not generate > >or accept any updates until you change it something like 192.168.10.0. > > I know this runs in some of the Gett scenarios. From S0010: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ! > ! Establishes initial RIP-only routing on R1. > ! > hostname r1 > ! > interface Loopback0 > ip address 192.168.255.1 255.255.255.252 > ! > interface Loopback1 > ip address 172.16.0.1 255.255.0.0 > ! > interface Ethernet0/0 > description to Cat 5K 3/1 > ip address 192.168.4.1 255.255.255.0 > half-duplex > ! > interface Serial1/0 > no ip address > encapsulation frame-relay > no frame-relay inverse-arp > frame-relay lmi-type ansi > ! > interface Serial1/0.2 point-to-point > description FR hub to R2; rev should be 211 > ip address 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.252 > frame-relay interface-dlci 112 > ! > interface Serial1/0.3 point-to-point > description FR hub to R3; rev should be 311 > ip address 192.0.2.5 255.255.255.252 > frame-relay interface-dlci 113 > ! > interface Serial1/1 > description serial to R3 > bandwidth 56 > ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252 > ! > router rip > network 172.16.0.0 > network 192.0.2.0 > network 192.168.0.0 > network 192.168.2.0 > network 192.168.4.0 > network 192.168.255.0 > ip classless > > > >Although it reports when you do a "sh ip prot" that it is routing for > >networks 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.10.0. Is this a Cisco IOS "feature"? > >I guess the same thing holds true with my question on the 172.16/12 > >Private IP. Thanks in advance for your input. > > > >Elmer > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > >Howard C. Berkowitz > >Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:11 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: private addressing [7:49083] > > > >>Can anyone tell me..... > >> > >>172.16.0.0 - 172.31.0.0 is used for class B private addressing.. > >> > >>That means that it can use 16 class B network address > >> > >>Now, let say I wan to use 172.35.0.0 block, so is this consider a > >private > >>address or a public address ? > > > >Public. > > > >The private blocks are > > > >10/8 > >172.16/12 > >192.168/16 > > > >Again, the sooner you stop thinking in classful terms, the easier > >real-world addressing becomes. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49202&t=49083 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
