[145784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internap lose all clue?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Oct 20 21:17:12 2011
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:16:13 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <24853.1319159320@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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,
Yeah, I quit using them in '98ish and never bothered trying again. Was
annoying the first time I realized the dialup user wasn't working
because they had a .0 or .255 address from the pool.
Of course, I've had more calls from people asking why they don't work
when they aren't supposed to work. :)
> 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... ;)
Yeah, but at 2-4 addresses per /24, I really can't be bothered to yell
at the coders. Easier to just not use them.
Jack
