[157488] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Maslak)
Wed Oct 24 00:52:59 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAAAas8FRcsV6exwUvCSasE9WqdRqZQ6Q1sMYajDa03jcTbmXyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:52:48 -0600
From: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote:
> IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
> top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
>
> Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
> a valid address on a remote network? if you have a route to it then it
> is a valid address that you should be able to exchange packets with,
> any assumptions beyond that are almost certainly going to be wrong
> somewhere.
As to why: I suspect they don't know either. I wouldn't be surprised
if it was someone's misguided attempt years ago to stop smurf
amplification attacks, long since forgotten. I'm not saying it's a
good idea (it's not), just why I suspect someone would do this.
