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? though
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones 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 network? if you ha
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
>
* 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
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Justin Krejci 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 third octet was not v
>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 ear
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw 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 such assumptions about
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
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 enginee
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 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 .0 and .255
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 discove
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
On 10/22/12, Paul Zugnoni 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 might not be supported anymore
> 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 prod
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
> 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 specif
--- j...@instituut.net wrote:
From: Job Snijders
> 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 exp
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
On 10/22/12 17:18 -0500, Matt Buford wrote:
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
Hi Paul,
On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:07 PM, 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. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you shoul
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
