Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

2016-05-18 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
On Tue, 17 May 2016, joel jaeggli wrote: We use these IPs for production VIPs and testing in a CDN (as /32s) and they are fine. I have talked to operator colleagues and found several who use .0 and .255 IPv4 adresses handed out to customers for Internet communication without ill effects. S

Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

2016-05-18 Thread otroan
Juliusz, >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5453 >> provides an answer w.r.t. IPv6. > > Do I need to avoid these addresses when assigning a /128 or a /127? no. if you assign a /128, that is a single address, the length of the IID is zero. the case of /127 is a little trickier, since then one end

Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

2016-05-18 Thread Ray Bellis
On 18/05/2016 08:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I have talked to operator colleagues and found several who use .0 and > .255 IPv4 adresses handed out to customers for Internet communication > without ill effects. > > So while this was a problem 10-20 years ago, I'd say it isn't now. I'm glad

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

2016-05-18 Thread Ray Hunter (v6ops)
Ted Lemon 14 May 2016 15:18 The only problem with that is that in the homenet ideally we'd like to have local names signed and validatable via DNSSEC, and that requires that the local namespace be global in scope, even if the names published in that namespace are no

Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

2016-05-18 Thread Joe Touch
On 5/18/2016 1:02 AM, otr...@employees.org wrote: > Juliusz, > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5453 >>> provides an answer w.r.t. IPv6. >> Do I need to avoid these addresses when assigning a /128 or a /127? > no. if you assign a /128, that is a single address, the length of the IID is > zero.

Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

2016-05-18 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> I have talked to operator colleagues and found several who use .0 and .255 > IPv4 adresses handed out to customers for Internet communication without > ill effects. The customers are probably behind NAT, so I'm not sure how much that says about the compatibility of client devices. > So while th