nanog mailing list archives
RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
From: Chris Ranch <CRanch () Affinity com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:41:17 -0400
I see traffic from this last IP address octet all the time from prefixes of length less than /24. Use of these host id's when the prefix length is greater than or equal to /24 is illegal. So if that's your case, I'd suggest not doing it. If that's not the case, look for over-zealous or incorrect filters in the path. I saw this situation once before. There was a border ingress filter with a typo in it... Chris
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.
Current thread:
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses., (continued)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jon Lewis (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jared Mauch (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. william(at)elan.net (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Howard C. Berkowitz (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. sthaug (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Petri Helenius (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen Sprunk (Jun 27)
- RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Chris Ranch (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 27)
- RE: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Tony Hain (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Bob Snyder (Jun 28)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Wayne E. Bouchard (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul G (Jun 26)
