Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Radu-Adrian Feurdean]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 21:02, Job Snijders wrote:
> Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
> (/32 or /128).

https://labs-pre.ripe.net/Members/stephane_bortzmeyer/all-ip-addresses-are-equal-dot-zero-addresses-are-less-equal

For a host route, no problem. For the host itself - a slightly different
story.

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Ryan Hamel wrote:


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).

I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP 
address in an RFC1918 range.


Last time I tried using the first address of a classful address block 
(which 172.16.0.0/32 would be) in Cisco IOS (classic), that didn't work 
properly. This was in IOS 12.0.x. You can't set up BGP peers to something 
in the network address in classful network space, for instance. So 
172.16.0.0/32 or 172.16.255.255/32 wouldn't work (because it's first and 
last address of class B space), but 172.16.1.0 worked just fine (because 
in class B space, 172.16.1.0 isn't special).


So while this has been allowed per standardssince mid 90:ties, it's not 
obvious that it'll work in all operating systems that might still be in 
use.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Keith Medcalf]

And thank god for that.  Since Microsoft stopped diddle-farting with Windows 98 
is was never infested with the UDP "Execute Payload with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM" 
flag that appeared in all later versions of Windows TCP/IP stack.

As Windows 98 worked on the day after Microsoft stopped diddling with it, so it 
will work on that day + N, for every value of N.

The most wonderful thing that can happen to a Microsoft product is that they 
stop diddling with it for at that point it stops being a moving target that 
works differently from one minute to the next.  Additionally, features cannot 
be removed from the product as usually happens with each downgrade (I think 
Microsoft calls them upgrades) of the products.

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Job
>Snijders
>Sent: Friday, 8 December, 2017 15:47
>To: Ken Chase
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
>
>On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase <m...@sizone.org> wrote:
>> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
>>
>> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
>>
>> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined
>implimentation choices
>> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices.
>Clever collision
>> avoidance, but relies on a prayer.
>
>Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR
>addresses. :-)
>
>> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows
>95 - it
>> used to lock the OS up fun times. Someone had pointed some
>popular domain
>> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of
>the day
>> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set
>something to
>> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer
>called us
>> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)
>
>Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Job

RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Kate Gerry]

In this example only semi-new devices with current OSes are accessing 
172.16.0.0, concerns over old devices or a BSD4.2 machine hitting it is highly 
unlikely.

To clarify Ryan's statement, the device in question is our software repository 
where we store OS software updates, for only recent versions of software, so it 
should not be an issue. Since we have multiple locations, and multiple software 
stores, we use 172.16.0.0 as the AnyCast address.

I am glad that we have been able to stir up such a discussion, Ryan and I had 
the same conversation here so I am glad that he brought it to the group.

--
Kate Gerry
Network & Facilities Director 
+1 (888) 578-2372 x206 / k...@quadranet.com 
QuadraNet, Inc. / Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud, QuadraNet Vest DDoS 
Protection
Datacenters in Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago & New Jersey


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Chase
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the 
ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade themselves to a new firmware that the devs 
released posthaste to handle them properly...

I like your upgrade-by-force ideas! (no, I do. Screw bad implimentations, let 
them be binned!) (Tell me about your v6 adoption plans now.)

The Win95 thing was just a personal example of how these things can express 
themselves...  was a good laugh at the time. The incidence and hilarity of 
similar events has not materially changed in the intervening decades, we'll all 
note.

Have fun with your .0's people! Let us know how your support dept likes em.

/kc

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:47:09PM +, Job Snijders said:
  >On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase <m...@sizone.org> wrote:
  >> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
  >>
  >> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.
  >>
  >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
  >>
  >> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation 
choices
  >> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever 
collision
  >> avoidance, but relies on a prayer.
  >
  >Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR
  >addresses. :-)
  >
  >> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it
  >> used to lock the OS up fun times. Someone had pointed some popular 
domain
  >> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day
  >> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to
  >> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us
  >> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)
  >
  >Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001
  >
  >Kind regards,
  >
  >Job

--
Ken Chase - Guelph Canada

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ken Chase]

Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the
ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade themselves to a new firmware that the devs
released posthaste to handle them properly...

I like your upgrade-by-force ideas! (no, I do. Screw bad implimentations, let 
them
be binned!) (Tell me about your v6 adoption plans now.)

The Win95 thing was just a personal example of how these things can express
themselves...  was a good laugh at the time. The incidence and hilarity of
similar events has not materially changed in the intervening decades, we'll
all note.

Have fun with your .0's people! Let us know how your support dept likes em.

/kc

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:47:09PM +, Job Snijders said:
  >On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase  wrote:
  >> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
  >>
  >> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.
  >>
  >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
  >>
  >> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation 
choices
  >> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever 
collision
  >> avoidance, but relies on a prayer.
  >
  >Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR
  >addresses. :-)
  >
  >> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it
  >> used to lock the OS up fun times. Someone had pointed some popular 
domain
  >> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day
  >> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to
  >> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us
  >> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)
  >
  >Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001
  >
  >Kind regards,
  >
  >Job

-- 
Ken Chase - Guelph Canada

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Jason Kuehl]

+1 for gross comment.

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Hunter Fuller  wrote:

> I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules
> I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.)
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel 
> wrote:
>
> > 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).
> >
> > I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address
> > in an RFC1918 range.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Hamel
> > ryan.ha...@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372 <(888)%20578-2372>
> > QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
> >
> > --
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller
> Network Engineer
> VBH Annex B-5
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Systems and Infrastructure
>



-- 
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ryan Hamel]

> 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: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: 12/8/17 1:46 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +, 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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ryan Hamel]

I'm not implying HTTP, I'm implying a static route at each sites private layer 
3 router (it'll move to BGP in the future). The repository server listens on 
the IP as well.

My original question was the fact of using 172.16.0.0/32 as a usable IP address 
(not even caring about anycast).


 Original message 
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel 
<ryan.ha...@quadranet.com<mailto:ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>> wrote:
> 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo 
> server. 172.16.0.0/32<http://172.16.0.0/32> redirects to a usable subnet ip 
> in 172.16.xx.xx by static route.

Hi Ryan,

Maybe if would help if you write the extended version because that's about as 
clear as mud. First you asked about routing. Now you imply HTTP.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com<mailto:her...@dirtside.com> 
 b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us>
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ryan Hamel]

1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo 
server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by static 
route.

2. Internal private network that is reachable by clients.

 Original message 
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Date: 12/8/17 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel 
<ryan.ha...@quadranet.com<mailto:ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>> wrote:
A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32<http://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<http://172.31.0.0/24> for example).

Hi Ryan,

Some clarifications:

1. You say, "static routed to a regions closest server." What do you mean by 
that? A static-routed anycast address?

2. In what reachability context? Is this a private network? An ISP network 
where the reachability should be the ISP and its customers?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com<mailto:her...@dirtside.com> 
 b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us>
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Job Snijders]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase  wrote:
> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
>
> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
>
> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices
> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever 
> collision
> avoidance, but relies on a prayer.

Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR
addresses. :-)

> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it
> used to lock the OS up fun times. Someone had pointed some popular domain
> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day
> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to
> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us
> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)

Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001

Kind regards,

Job

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ken Chase]

why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?

lots of other ranges you could probably use safely.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses

Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices
of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever 
collision
avoidance, but relies on a prayer.

(IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it
used to lock the OS up fun times. Someone had pointed some popular domain
at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day
meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to
get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us
and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :)

/kc


On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:25:58PM -0500, William Herrin said:
  >On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com> wrote:
  >>
  >> I'm not implying HTTP, I'm implying a static route at each sites private
  >layer 3 router (it'll move to BGP in the future). The repository server
  >listens on the IP as well.
  >>
  >> My original question was the fact of using 172.16.0.0/32 as a usable IP
  >address (not even caring about anycast).
  >
  >> Internal private network that is reachable by clients.
  >
  >Hi Ryan,
  >
  >Clients meaning employee computers or clients meaning other networks who
  >subscribe to your service and connect with a VPN?
  >
  >The the former, save yourself grief and use a different /32.
  >
  >For the latter, it's semi-clever. It neatly avoids the problem of customers
  >using the same RFC1918 addresses as you. Even if they're using a subnet
  >like 172.16.0.0/24, a /32 route can usually override that one address
  >without ill effect.
  >
  >It's only semi-clever because the .0 address is a corner case in the code
  >and corner cases are where bugs are most likely to happen.  And if you're
  >sending clients from that address to another host with a regular 172.16
  >address anyway...
  >
  >Regards,
  >Bill Herrin
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >>
  >>
  >>  Original message 
  >> From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
  >> Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
  >> To: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
  >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
  >> Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  >>
  >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
  >> wrote:
  >> > 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo
  >> server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by
  >> static route.
  >>
  >> Hi Ryan,
  >>
  >> Maybe if would help if you write the extended version because that's about
  >> as clear as mud. First you asked about routing. Now you imply HTTP.
  >>
  >> Regards,
  >> Bill Herrin
  >>
  >>
  >> --
  >> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
  >> Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
  >>
  >
  >
  >
  >-- 
  >William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
  >Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

-- 
Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not implying HTTP, I'm implying a static route at each sites private
layer 3 router (it'll move to BGP in the future). The repository server
listens on the IP as well.
>
> My original question was the fact of using 172.16.0.0/32 as a usable IP
address (not even caring about anycast).

> Internal private network that is reachable by clients.

Hi Ryan,

Clients meaning employee computers or clients meaning other networks who
subscribe to your service and connect with a VPN?

The the former, save yourself grief and use a different /32.

For the latter, it's semi-clever. It neatly avoids the problem of customers
using the same RFC1918 addresses as you. Even if they're using a subnet
like 172.16.0.0/24, a /32 route can usually override that one address
without ill effect.

It's only semi-clever because the .0 address is a corner case in the code
and corner cases are where bugs are most likely to happen.  And if you're
sending clients from that address to another host with a regular 172.16
address anyway...

Regards,
Bill Herrin




>
>
>  Original message 
> From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
> Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
> wrote:
> > 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo
> server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by
> static route.
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Maybe if would help if you write the extended version because that's about
> as clear as mud. First you asked about routing. Now you imply HTTP.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel  wrote:
> 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo
server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by
static route.

Hi Ryan,

Maybe if would help if you write the extended version because that's about
as clear as mud. First you asked about routing. Now you imply HTTP.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel 
wrote:

> 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).
>

Hi Ryan,

Some clarifications:

1. You say, "static routed to a regions closest server." What do you mean
by that? A static-routed anycast address?

2. In what reachability context? Is this a private network? An ISP network
where the reachability should be the ISP and its customers?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Job Snijders]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders  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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders  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 :)

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +, 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



pgpARlFxa0l_N.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Job Snijders]

Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
(/32 or /128).

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Hunter Fuller]

I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules
I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.)

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel  wrote:

> 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).
>
> I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address
> in an RFC1918 range.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Ryan Hamel
> ryan.ha...@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372 <(888)%20578-2372>
> QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
>
> --

--
Hunter Fuller
Network Engineer
VBH Annex B-5
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Systems and Infrastructure

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Ryan Hamel]

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).

I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an 
RFC1918 range.

Thanks,

--
Ryan Hamel
ryan.ha...@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372
QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud