ok... so lets look at some space here.
98.32.0.0/22
98.32.0.0/32 is clearly on the unusable boundary.
what about
98.32.0.255/32 98.32.1.0/32 ???
98.32.4.255/32 is also clearly on the unusable boundary... UNTIL
the delegation moves from a /22 to a /21. Then its usable.
clear?
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in
packets as traffic that should be considered invalid.
On a separate note, one of my customers
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Andy Smith a...@strugglers.net wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard
Hi,
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
But that would mean that the ...:fffe address also shouldn't work. Considering
RFC 2526 then filtering those addresses when used as source address makes sense.
- Sander
PS: I'm in contact with a network
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:16:48AM -0500, Rob Laidlaw wrote:
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
D'oh, I didn't even think to check for reserved addresses. Thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw laid...@consecro.com wrote:
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Only true if speaking of /24, but with the appearance of CIDR 19 years
ago, this is not true anymore The .255 and .0 in the center of a /23
are perfectly usable see an
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
* Job Snijders
In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP
addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I
understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel
situation. Ok, enough snarkyness!
Quite recently a participant of the
I purposely assigned myself a .0 and never had a problem using anything online,
or going anywhere
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:00:53 +0200
From: tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com
To: j...@instituut.net
Subject: Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable
addresses?
CC:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones m...@mikejones.in wrote:
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
a valid address on a remote
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0
and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be
considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you should
expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP
As far as I know. There is no RFC based restrictions based on having
those as usable IPs.
We have been routing customers IP blocks on our network for a while
and never had a problem with 0 or .255 as the assigned IP even with
Microsoft Windows 2003 as the operating system.
Im not sure how to fix
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com
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
Hi Paul,
On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0
and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be
considered invalid. When you have a pool of
On 10/22/12 17:18 -0500, Matt Buford wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com
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
From: Paul Zugnoni [mailto:paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com]
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as
src/dst in packets as traffic that should be considered
invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you
--- j...@instituut.net wrote:
From: Job Snijders j...@instituut.net
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard
.0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should
be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses,
d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you =
should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N=
AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a commercial IP mgm=
t product and getting reports of M$ ISA proxy that is
In message 201210222307.q9mn7aiv063...@aurora.sol.net, Joe Greco writes:
d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you
=
should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N
=
AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a
Ten year old equipment should be CIDR aware. It's not like it CIDR
wasn't in wide spread using in 2002.
And BCP38 has had sufficient time to be globally deployed.
What's your point, again? ;-)
I was pretty careful in trying to outline that it's still expected
that there are defective
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
