On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Justin Krejci <jkre...@usinternet.com> wrote: > And since owen has not yet mentioned it, consider something that supports > having : in its address as well. > > Sort of tangentially related, I had a support rep for a vendor once tell me > that a 255 in the second or third octet was not valid for an ipv4 address. > Hard to troubleshoot a problem when I had to first explain how ip addressing > worked because the rep was so fixated on the 255 we were using on the > network. If any product really doesn't like 255 in any position then you > should consider yourself lucky to still be in business at all. Jimmy Hess > <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote:On 10/22/12, Paul Zugnoni > <paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com> wrote: > [snip] >> Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since >> it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending >> against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason. > > ISA is old, and might not be supported anymore, unless you have an > extended support contract. If it's not supported anymore, then don't > be surprised if it has breakage you will not be able to repair. I > don't recommend upgrading to TMG, either: although still supported, > that was just discontinued. > > If ISA is refusing traffic to/from IPs ending in .0, then ISA is > either broken, or misconfigured. > Get a support case with the vendor, raise it as a critical issue -- > unable to pass traffic to critical infrastructure that ends with a > .255 or .0 IP address, demand that the vendor provide a resolution, > And explain that changing the IP address of the remote server is not an > option. > > > If the vendor can't or won't provide a resolution, then not only is > the proxy server broken, > but malfunctioning in a way that has an impact on network connectivity. > > I would consider its removal compulsory, as you never know, when a > network resource, web site, e-mail server, etc. your org has a > business critical need to access, or be accessed from; may be > placed on .255 or .0 > > -- > -JH >
this was also discussed back in August in this thread http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-August/051290.html james
