[105190] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Henderson)
Fri Jun 13 23:42:41 2008
From: Ian Henderson <ianh@chime.net.au>
To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, David Hubbard
<dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:42:31 +0800
In-Reply-To: <23933.1213384602@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote on 2008-06-14:
> 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.
We've faced two issues with .255 and .0:
- Using /31 links Windows tracert * * *'s on .0 addresses. Had many users w=
ho thought they knew better complain about it.
- Using a .255 loopback on a Cisco 6500 SNMP requests would return from the=
closest interface IP address. Combined with a specific version of SNMP lib=
raries (which I can't recall right now), this caused queries to fail.
Rgds,
- I.
--
Ian Henderson, CCIE #14721
Senior Network Engineer, iiNet Limited
