On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:26 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also .0 and .1. > > Yes, there was some kind of a strange behavior with those addresses > before. We excluded those from rotation back in 2011 when that was really > biting us. There's an impression that this issue has become much less > troubling over the years, didn't have time to investigate though. > Yep, I once had a customer (circa 2013–2014) who couldn't load https://www.stgeorge.com.au/ because they (a PPP–based user, where addressing is point to point, effectively /32 each end if you like) had an IP address ending in .0, despite it being in the middle of an otherwise larger pool. Some middlebox forming opinions about an address it has no business forming an opinion about.
