|
|
 |
Re: .255 and .0 addresses
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:50:19 +0300
This is issue but not routing-wg's...
We noticed this problem some time ago. First we thought that the problem
is in the BRAS equipment but it's not. It seems to be that site's behind
broken firewalls which refuses the connection from x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255
addresses. We haven't been able to find out which vendors break
classless ip.
If there is Firewall WG in IETF, it would be the correct place for this
topic...
Regards,
Jarno Lähteenmäki
Jon Lawrence wrote:
On Sunday 12 September 2004 18:05, Volodymyr Yakovenko wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I am trying to push one BIG telecom equipment vendor TAC to consider wrong
situation with assignment of IP addresses like xxx.xxx.xxx.0 and
xxx.xxx.xxx.255 from dynamic IP pools bigger than or equal to /24.
Quick googling has not shown any STD or BCP documents, which could be used
as reference, but has shown number of pages, saying something like "do not
use .0 or .255 addresses, it could cause problems".
Without doubt, the pools must be bigger than /24 in order for .0 or .255 to be
used as host addresses. Never tried it personally, but I can see no reason
why .0.255 or .1.0 wouldn't be usable in a .0.0/23 - obviously assuming that
you pass /23 to the hosts as a netmask.
Jon
|
|
|
|
