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: > 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" <email@example.com> > 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