[71966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Sun Jun 27 06:20:50 2004
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
"Jonathan McDowell" <noodles@earth.li>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 05:12:00 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Various people I've asked about this have said they wouldn't use the .0
> or .255 addresses themselves, though couldn't present any concrete info
> about why not; my experience above would seem to suggest a reason not to
> use them.
This comes up every year or two on nanog; it's discouraging that operators
and/or vendors are still screwing this up over a decade after RFC 1519.
Thus spake "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
> This is what happens when your educational system continues to teach
> classful routing as anything other than a HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE
> *coughCiscocough*. This is also how you end up with 76k /24s in the global
> routing table.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
> Do you part to help control the ignorant population: whenever you hear
> someone say "class [ABC]" in reference to anything other than a historical
> allocation, smack them. Hard.
It seems to be pretty common usage now to refer to a /24 as a "Class C",
regardless of the first octet. Certainly incorrect, but half as many
syllables...
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
