> At some point, some chucklehead is going to look at that .0.0 and mentally > think /16, and things will go pear-shaped pretty quickly....
Same for a /12, which is RFC1918. -------- Original message -------- From: [email protected] Date: 12/8/17 1:46 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Ryan Hamel <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +0000, Ryan Hamel said: > Greetings, > A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, > to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest > server. > While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I don't feel > this should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a > usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example). Probably depends on what your colleague is trying to do. Nothing in the rules says the .0 address on a subnet is reserved (though you're in for a surprise if there's any gear still on the net with a 4.2BSD stack). > I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in > an RFC1918 range. > At some point, some chucklehead is going to look at that .0.0 and mentally > think /16, and things will go pear-shaped pretty quickly....
