On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route >> (/32 or /128). >> > > note that in times past (perhaps even now marked historical) there were > platforms which got unhappy with network/broadcast addresses being used as > host addresses... > > At least some windows platforms balked at .0 or .255 host addresses (even > if that address was 'off-net' from them). > > maybe this is all history though :) > It is 2017... if you encounter such platforms you take them out back and “set them free”. :-) We can, and must, expect CIDR compliance these days. Kind regards, Job
