ok... so lets look at some space here. 98.32.0.0/22
98.32.0.0/32 is clearly on the unusable boundary. what about 98.32.0.255/32 & 98.32.1.0/32 ??? 98.32.4.255/32 is also clearly on the unusable boundary... UNTIL the delegation moves from a /22 to a /21. Then its usable. clear? thought so. /bill On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:00:53PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Job Snijders > > > In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP > > addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I > > understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel > > situation. Ok, enough snarkyness! > > > > Quite recently a participant of the NLNOG RING had a problem related > > to an .255 IP address. You can read more about it here: > > https://ring.nlnog.net/news/2012/10/ring-success-the-ipv4-255-problem/ > > AIUI, that particular problem couldn't be blamed on lack of CIDR support > either, as 91.218.150.255 is (was) a class A address. It would have had > to be 91.255.255.255 or 91.0.0.0 for it to be special in the classful > pre-CIDR world. > > That said, it's rather common for people to believe that a /24 anywhere > in the IPv4 address space is a +class C; so I'm not really surprised. > > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
