[16187] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SMURF amplifier block list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charley Kline)
Tue Apr 14 17:07:16 1998
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your mail of Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:36:45 -0400 ,
<19980414153645.26183@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
From: kline@uiuc.edu (Charley Kline)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:00:33 -0400
> 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.
> Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or
> experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of
> less than 1% of usable address space.
What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking
perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains
for a proper solution?
Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a
quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255
addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply
say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated
classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless.
We all said so.
Dissapointed,
/cvk
