And returned for full credit and msrp.
Jared Mauch
On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Alan Buxey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> been using .0 and .255 addresses (in the proper class-less places eg in middle
> of a /23 ) for years now. any kit or system that cannot handlesuch addresses
> as being client/end-stati
Hi,
been using .0 and .255 addresses (in the proper class-less places eg in middle
of a /23 ) for years now. any kit or system that cannot handlesuch addresses
as being client/end-station addresses should be dumped onto the recycling pile
and got rid of (its likely that such kit cannot do IPv6 ei
I have always avoided .0 and .255 as well, however a few months back I
noticed that Amazon ec2 is assigning .0 addresses to servers. My own
"personal VPS" has a .0 public elastic/static IP and seems to work fine. I
figure that if they're using .0 at their large scale, surely it can't be
too bad.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 09:33:19PM -0800, Eric Rosenberry wrote:
> I am scratching my head here wondering if I have run into a Cisco bug, or
> somehow intended weird behavior...
Bug. I encountered less of them with foo.0/32 than foo.255/32, but
an uphill battle to them to DTRT.
--
RSUC
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012, Mohamed Touré wrote:
For "security reasons" (Smurf attacks ...) IP packets with destination of
classfull broadcast may be filtered by your upstream security devices if
any.
There were none of those involved in this.
Having
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012, Mohamed Touré wrote:
For "security reasons" (Smurf attacks ...) IP packets with destination
of classfull broadcast may be filtered by your upstream security devices
if any.
There were none of those involved in this.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On 01/01/2012, at 4:33 PM, Eric Rosenberry wrote:
> When pinging the loopback IP's of these devices from the Internet, one
> responds as expected (from the IP of the loopback), and the other (.255)
> responds from a *different* IP address (one of it's interface IP's rather
> than the loopback IP).
Hi
For "security reasons" (Smurf attacks ...) IP packets with destination of
classfull broadcast may be filtered by your upstream security devices if
any.
Mohamed
On 1 January 2012 10:05, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Eric Rosenberry wrote:
>
> Under that logic, the .254 I
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Eric Rosenberry wrote:
Under that logic, the .254 IP on the other router is also the broadcast
address since it is in a /32 subnet as well...
For laughs I tried to use the highest and lowest address of a class B
network as loopback addresses. Some stuff will not work if y
inline...
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>
> If the mask of 216.x.x is /24 or longer, then .255 will be a broadcast
> address and the ping response will be from one or more host addresses on
> the subnet.
>
> If the second x of 216.x.x is odd, then the same issue will pert
On 12/31/11 9:33 PM, Eric Rosenberry wrote:
> I am scratching my head here wondering if I have run into a Cisco bug, or
> somehow intended weird behavior...
>
> I set the loopback IP's for a pair of 6500's (Sup720-3CXL's) to adjacent
> IP's and have *identical* config's on them (sans their interfa
I am scratching my head here wondering if I have run into a Cisco bug, or
somehow intended weird behavior...
I set the loopback IP's for a pair of 6500's (Sup720-3CXL's) to adjacent
IP's and have *identical* config's on them (sans their interface and
loopback IP's).
One of them is 216.x.x.254 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
