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/[email protected]/
.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 ]
Jerome Fleury
jerome.fleury at fr.tiscali.com
Sun Sep 12 22:03:52 CEST 2004
--On dimanche 12 septembre 2004 20:14 +0100 Jon Lawrence <jon at lawrence.org.uk> wrote: > Without doubt, the pools must be bigger than /24 in order for .0 or .255 to be > used as host addresses. Never tried it personally, but I can see no reason > why .0.255 or .1.0 wouldn't be usable in a .0.0/23 - obviously assuming that > you pass /23 to the hosts as a netmask. Our experience as ISP proved that you don't want to allocate .0 and .255 addresses to your customers: stats reveal lower rates and lower connection times for those customers. We assumed that was due to the windows TCP/IP stack, and we have proved the Cisco stack to be culprit some times, sending other customers broadcast frames to the unfortunate .255 Since then we've definitely stopped allocating .0 and .255 addresses, no problem anymore. -- Jerome Fleury Tiscali France Network Engineer Tel: +33 1 45082314
- Previous message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
- Next message (by thread): .255 and .0 addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]