[157440] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bryan Tong)
Mon Oct 22 18:12:20 2012
In-Reply-To: <73A9A2579638014A8254BF9FE31DDB244FAF4FA6@mbx2.jiveland.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:12:06 -0600
From: Bryan Tong <contact@nullivex.com>
To: Paul Zugnoni <paul.zugnoni@jivesoftware.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 your issue but I dont think its automatically
disregarded by anyone that would seem silly.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni
<paul.zugnoni@jivesoftware.com> wrote:
> Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regar=
d .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that sho=
uld be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, yo=
u should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or=
NAT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a commercial IP m=
gmt product and getting reports of M$ ISA proxy that is specifically blocki=
ng traffic for an IP ending in .0 or .255.
>
> Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy=85. Sinc=
e it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommendin=
g against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason.
--=20
--------------------
Bryan Tong
Nullivex LLC | eSited LLC
(507) 298-1624
