[105175] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Jun 13 15:17:11 2008
To: David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT."
<FCD26398C5EDE746BFC47F43EA52A17303252D09@dino.ad.hostasaurus.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:16:42 -0400
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1213384602_21332P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT, David Hubbard said:
> I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
> systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
> for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
> made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
> today. From two of four ISP's it worked fine, from Verizon
> FIOS and Road Runner commercial, it didn't. So I guess
> that old problem still lingers?
RFC1519 is 15 years old now. I *still* heard a trainer (in a Cisco
class no less) mention class A/B/C in the last few months. Some evil
will obviously take generations to fully stamp out.
Anybody from Verizon FIOS or RoadRunner care to explain why David is seeing
an issue in 2008?
--==_Exmh_1213384602_21332P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFIUseacC3lWbTT17ARAhc8AJ44iq0wS0HEADRY3bSHWRYunmheRwCfQBtI
ai5zVwLzJCe/kiVmHgnoWlg=
=waqj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1213384602_21332P--
