If you want to take it further and increase the weirdness then run
ISIS and go ip unnumbered everywhere :-)
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Good One go...@live.com wrote:
I was just thinking about using bla.bla.bla.0/32 (as a loopback address) and
bla.bla.bla.0/31 on some point to point
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Ian Henderson i...@ianh.net.au wrote:
On 11/12/2010, at 2:27 PM, Good One wrote:
I was just thinking about using bla.bla.bla.0/32 (as a loopback address) and
bla.bla.bla.0/31 on some point to point interfaces. Not sure which one is
ugly and not useable at the
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:16:59PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
That's a nice feature of using .0 and .255 addresses on what used to
be class C space: Windows bots won't DoS you.
We tried using .255/32 as a loopback address, but certain Cisco routers
(even running pretty modern code) refused
I was just thinking about using bla.bla.bla.0/32 (as a loopback address) and
bla.bla.bla.0/31 on some point to point interfaces. Not sure which one is ugly
and not useable at the moment. But would love to hear from you guys...
On 11/12/2010, at 2:27 PM, Good One wrote:
I was just thinking about using bla.bla.bla.0/32 (as a loopback address) and
bla.bla.bla.0/31 on some point to point interfaces. Not sure which one is
ugly and not useable at the moment. But would love to hear from you guys...
5 matches
Mail list logo
