[address-policy-wg] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Patrick.Guelat at imp.ch
Patrick.Guelat at imp.ch
Fri Jul 15 10:29:25 CEST 2005
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Max Tulyev wrote: > But! Seldom I am experiencing some problems with that kind of addresses. There > is a number misconfigured "antihackers" filters on the Net blocks .0 and .255 > as they thinks it is always broadcasts. A bit soul-save discussion with such > admins usually fixes the problem ;) Unfortunately this is not the experience I have from the field. We're using superneted /20 blocks composed out of `class c'-ranges for cable-tv broadband customers. I had to change the DHCP-server to prevent the assignment of .0 and .255 since we've got a lot of problems with such misconfigured filters in the net and we didn't have the time for all those 'soul-save' discussions with admins not understanding the concept of classless ip-routing. Patrick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]