[157443] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan White)
Mon Oct 22 18:23:25 2012
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:22:31 -0500
From: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
To: Matt Buford <matt@overloaded.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAALUyuQZ=3Mo0595DcEx5XAW-StOYkXnjOpFGO6GEc9iEbROLg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/22/12 17:18 -0500, Matt Buford wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni <paul.zugnoni@jivesoftware.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since
>> it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending
>> against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason.
>>
>
>Way back in the late 90's I tried this with a /23 dialup DHCP pool and
>quickly found that the .0 and .255 users couldn't get to some scattered web
>sites, though they seemed to be able to get to most of the Internet.
>
>However, a year or so ago I spun up an always-on Amazon ec2 instance with a
>static IP and was handed a .0 address. I still use this VM regularly and
>have not run into any problems with reachability for this address.
I had a similar experience about 10 years ago, with DSL customers who had
been assigned .0 or .255 addresses not able to reach some sites.
--
Dan White
