|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:36:45 -0400 From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980414084608.11954B-100000@luna.mpl.net>; from Aaron Beck <abeck@falcon.org> on Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 08:49:04AM -0700 On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 08:49:04AM -0700, Aaron Beck wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Then again, filtering any packets to or from x.x.x.255 would have a > > similar but more profound effect. Anyone who actually uses a .255 > > address for a host is asking for trouble anyways. > > the problem with that thinking, of course, is going to crop up when you > encounter /23's and greater. No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may break, and you deserve what you get. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |