Hello,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in
packets as traffic that should be considered invalid.
On a separate note, one of my customers
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Andy Smith a...@strugglers.net wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard
Hi,
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
But that would mean that the ...:fffe address also shouldn't work. Considering
RFC 2526 then filtering those addresses when used as source address makes sense.
- Sander
PS: I'm in contact with a network
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:16:48AM -0500, Rob Laidlaw wrote:
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
D'oh, I didn't even think to check for reserved addresses. Thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw laid...@consecro.com wrote:
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Only true if speaking of /24, but with the appearance of CIDR 19 years
ago, this is not true anymore The .255 and .0 in the center of a /23
are perfectly usable see an
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones m...@mikejones.in wrote:
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
a valid address on a remote
7 matches
Mail list logo
