All major vendors support 0 and 255 as loopback in the last octet. o if you are using J or C for instance, your safe. If you use an obscure small vendor, the choice to use 0 and 255 can come back and bite you in the ***.
Cheers Patrik Mark Tinka wrote: > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
