[145783] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internap lose all clue?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Oct 20 21:11:27 2011
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:39:51 CDT."
<4EA0BF57.4030609@brightok.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:08:40 -0400
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1319159319_4595P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:39:51 CDT, Jack Bates said:
> On 10/20/2011 4:03 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
> > "You should expect<our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our
> > prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network
> > interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"
> Honestly, though. Can you blame them in this case? Given the lack of
> insight into your network, I also might question your numbering system
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 /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets.
Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255, because there are
*still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"...
What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly
via the code they write... ;)
--==_Exmh_1319159319_4595P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOoMYXcC3lWbTT17ARApvgAJsEKyZSyI1gnrLrdElR0Eipo0e+8QCbBNE2
z/ZnyDAvHVy9KOoRtB5lSnQ=
=h2O6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1319159319_4595P--
