|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
Jonathan McDowell <[email protected]> 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. It's funny that it is you of all people that would note this, as I came to the same sort of conclusion after configuring and installing tippett.debian.org for you. Tippett has the IP address of 195.92.249.0. In the old classful scheme, this would be in a class C network. Energis actually have 195.92/16 and "supernet" the class Cs into more useful chunks. I think it's a good idea to conserve address space by issuing the IP addresses thus released. Unfortunately, a certain software producer in Redmond apparently hasn't heard of CIDR. I found that I could ping Tippett from a Windows 2000 box just fine, but TCP connections would always fail with "connection refused". Getting a packet sniffer on the job showed that Windows wasn't even issuing a SYN - it was deciding for itself that a connection wasn't valid without even trying. So it seems inadvisable to use addresses that would be network and broadcast addresses in the old classful scheme. IOW, if you've got, say, an 80.x.x.x address, .0 and .255 are most likely fine. (But test it first, as I haven't.) -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger [email protected] for full key
|