North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > Have just spent some time trying to track down what seemed to be an > elusive problem, I thought I'd mention it here. > > I've had problems accessing www.level3.net, www.ebay.co.uk and > www.dabs.com (and a few others I don't recall). As I'm the first user of > a reasonably new netblock I thought it might be something to do with > filters on our upstreams or similar. Trying an IP from our older > netblock worked without problems, which seemed to back this up. > > However eventually I tracked it down to the use of the .0 address from > the new netblock; changing to use the .1 address meant I could access > the above sites without any difficulty. > > 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 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. 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. -- Richard A Steenbergen <email@example.com> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)