Hi, On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 08:27:28AM +0500, Good One wrote: > I was just thinking about using bla.bla.bla.0/32 (as a loopback > address) and bla.bla.bla.0/31 on some point to point interfaces. > Not sure which one is ugly and not useable at the moment. But would > love to hear from you guys...
Both are ugly. It's IPv4, what do you expect?
Seriously: in theory, it should just work.
If "bla" is from the former Class C space, though, there might be
some surprises in using the .0, as IOS has "helpful features" for the
"oh, you are talking about the whole Class C here?" case...
Cisco-XX>sh ip route 10.255.255.0
Routing entry for 10.255.255.0/30
Known via "eigrp 99", distance 90, metric 157696, type internal
...
(showing *just* the route that decides where the .0 goes to)
Cisco-XX>sh ip route 194.xx.129.0
Routing entry for 194.xx.129.0/24, 19 known subnets
Attached (1 connections)
Variably subnetted with 3 masks
...
(showing all subnets, not just "where would you route the .0 to?" - which
is especially annoying because the actual route for packets to ".0" is
not even showing up in this example's output, as the .0 would be part of
the 194.97.128.0/23 supernet...)
I'd *really* wish Cisco would notice that the days of Class C networks
are gone, and that ".0" has no more or less special meaning in "former
Class C" space than in "the rest of the legacy IP address space"...
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpkuOua4ojL9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
