North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: SMURF amplifier block list
On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 04:00:33PM -0400, Charley Kline wrote: > > No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if > > you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may > > break, and you deserve what you get. > > > Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or > > experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of > > less than 1% of usable address space. Watch your quoting, Charley; I said the first thing; someone else the latter. > What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking > perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains > for a proper solution? The problem is one of leverage, Charley. If I do assign .255 to a host, then I'm at the mercey of the entire friggin Internet. If I _don't_... then I'm in control. Yes, it's ugly, but (as they used to say in the navy) "that's fine sonny, but this here's the Fleet." > Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a > quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255 > addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply > say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated > classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless. > We all said so. Welcome to the real world. Not everyone has those "you must be this tall to ride this ride" signs on their downlinks. Sorry. Cheers, -- jr "it's rarely productive to argue with the weather" a -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
|