Re: nested prefixes in Internet

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Is that a real problem? In my experience a /24 is honoured almost > universially. > Here's a real-world issue I ran into with this. In this case, it isn't that someone filtered /24s, but that they didn't have a full table (peering route

Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni wrote: > 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. > Way back in the late 90's I tr

Re: Firewalls in service provider environments

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Reath wrote: > > One of my customers has a list like that. They can't understand why > > one in every hundred or so TCP connections on port 443 fails. > > > > Hint: you forgot "access-list 102 permit tcp any any established" > > after "access-list 102 deny

Re: Did Internap lose all clue?

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:08 PM, wrote: > Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255. > > But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an > interface is > demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal > .0 > and .255 addresses in each