North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: APNIC returning 223/8 to IANA
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:11:47PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > > Would you agree, as I've suggested, that there is no inherent > > technical limitation to using 223.255.255.0/24? > > FWIW, I still see 'classful behavior' with WindowsXP (all recent > service packs and such like) and also Solaris 2.7 (not sure about > later releases, I'm guessing it's still there though). > > My point here is that many years after CIDR we still get weird > anomalies in IP stacks --- so I wouldn't bet on anything being safe > unless well tested. > > --cw I don't doubt that there are OS's with bugs. However, my assertion is that 223.255.255.0/24 would continue to work under even Pre-CIDR gear. Therefore, even if an OS exhibited classful behaviour, that would be unrelated to the usefulness of 223.255.255.0/24. Are you saying that Class-based routers can not use 223.255.255.0/24? Aside from real design errors or unintended Features, 223.255.255.0/24 (and 192.0.0.0/24, 128.0.0.0/16, and 191.255.0.0/16) should be able to be assigned, should the IANA no longer need to maintain the reservations. That being that they are/were reserved to be assigned to some purpose, and not because they couldn't ever be used.
|