[159836] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Jan 23 18:43:13 2013
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301240020480.75904@pohjola.cksoft.de>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:42:38 -0500
To: Christian Kratzer <ck@cksoft.de>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Christian Kratzer <ck-lists@cksoft.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, William Herrin wrote:
>> The algorithm will exclude the .0 and .255 external addresses from
>> use, mapping the respective internal IPs to the other externals.
>
> why would you want to do that. .0 and .255 are perfectly valid ips.
Except for the machines which will refuse to talk to them. There's no
excuse for post-classful stacks failing to work with those IPs but
some do anyway. Enough that you don't want to waste your support
staff's time dealing with the fallout.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
