On Saturday 28 February 2009 06:31:15 pm Cougar wrote: > What kind of exception is this? In CIDR world you can use > any address you like except first and last _LAN_ > addresses when netmask is /30 or less. With /31 and /32 > can use any address and so far I haven't seen any > problems using x.x.x.0 or x.x.x.255 in Junipers.
That may very well be - but my suggestion is just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a great idea "all around". These are the types of practices that come back and bite you due to varying levels of support for implementing .0 and .255 across various pieces of software. I'm not presuming the OP has only Junipers to deal with in their network. Given the number of addresses one may potentially save in, say, a /24 sliced only for Loopbacks vs. not getting stressed by why this may break some things in the network; I'd much rather sacrifice those two addresses, thank-you- very-much. Keep it simple, keep it stupid, keep it unambiguous. The physics don't change, just how you apply them. Then again, to each his own... You probably want to spend some time wading through: http://tinyurl.com/dzw4cj http://tinyurl.com/av8rwm http://tinyurl.com/chwjms Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
