|
|
 |
Re: .255 and .0 addresses
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:59:21 +0200
- Organization: LAYER3 CONSULTING
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.
The main problem is the classfull behavior of windows tcp/ip stack and
DUN for the ipcp negotiated address. It's sure that you can't use
network and broadcast address of an old natural network if running MS
Windows & DUN.
Assingnament of the correct netmask can't be used as workaround because
in traditional ppp the mask is not negotiated ( netmask assignament in
ipcp is a very new feature ).
Félix
|
|
|
|
