This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
.255 and .0 addresses
- Previous message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
- Next message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sun Sep 12 19:38:05 CEST 2004
hi, On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 08:05:55PM +0300, Volodymyr Yakovenko wrote: > I am trying to push one BIG telecom equipment vendor TAC to consider wrong > situation with assignment of IP addresses like xxx.xxx.xxx.0 and > xxx.xxx.xxx.255 from dynamic IP pools bigger than or equal to /24. Strictly speaking, this is not a software bug. Inside a larger network, say a /23 going from .0.0 - .3.255, the "inside" .0 and .255 addresses are not special, and could be used just fine, just as any other address. OTOH, in the Internet, a fair number of people are now filtering .0 and .255 addresses due to the common exploiting of the "smurf" packet amplifying method. So the addresses cannot really be used for Internet connectivity anymore. We work around that by defining the pools in multiple steps: ip local pool dial-in-block a.b.52.1 a.b.52.254 ip local pool dial-in-block a.b.53.1 a.b.53.254 ip local pool dial-in-block a.b.54.1 a.b.54.254 ip local pool dial-in-block a.b.55.1 a.b.55.254 that way, "one of the big vendors"' equipment will not assign .0 and .255 out of the pool. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
- Next message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]