[157475] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Darren O'Connor)
Tue Oct 23 16:08:15 2012
From: Darren O'Connor <darrenoc@outlook.com>
To: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com>, Job Snijders
<job@instituut.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:07:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5086F775.6060704@redpill-linpro.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I purposely assigned myself a .0 and never had a problem using anything onl=
ine=2C or going anywhere
> Date: Tue=2C 23 Oct 2012 22:00:53 +0200
> From: tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com
> To: job@instituut.net
> Subject: Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addr=
esses?
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> * Job Snijders
>=20
> > In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP
> > addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I
> > understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel
> > situation. Ok=2C enough snarkyness!
> >=20
> > Quite recently a participant of the NLNOG RING had a problem related
> > to an .255 IP address. You can read more about it here:
> > https://ring.nlnog.net/news/2012/10/ring-success-the-ipv4-255-problem/
>=20
> AIUI=2C that particular problem couldn't be blamed on lack of CIDR suppor=
t
> either=2C as 91.218.150.255 is (was) a class A address. It would have had
> to be 91.255.255.255 or 91.0.0.0 for it to be special in the classful
> pre-CIDR world.
>=20
> That said=2C it's rather common for people to believe that a /24 anywhere
> in the IPv4 address space is a =ABclass C=BB so I'm not really surprised.
>=20
> --=20
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>=20
=
