On Jun 14, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Mike Lewinski wrote:
David Hubbard wrote:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
today. From two of four ISP's it worked fine, from Verizon
FIOS and
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT, David Hubbard said:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
today.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT, David Hubbard said:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it
On Jun 13, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:47 EDT, David Hubbard said:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for
Christopher Morrow wrote:
go-go-actiontec (vol sends those out, god do they suck...)
Crappy CPE's are exactly why we don't hand out .0 and .255 addresses in
our DHCP pools. :(
--
Kameron Gasso | Senior Systems Administrator | visp.net
Direct: 541-955-6903 | Fax: 541-471-0821
I have had a look into the manuals of my ISP's routers.
Those boxes can think in /24 only. The split whatever you
have down to several /24 and reserve both .0 and .255 in
each of them.
I have seen both .0 and .255 in the WLAN behind NAT working
but you have to ifconfig the interface via telnet.
David Hubbard wrote:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
today. From two of four ISP's it worked fine,
Mike Lewinski wrote:
The TCP/IP stack in Windows XP is broken in this regard, possibly in
Vista as well, though I've yet to have the displeasure of finding out.
A co-worker confirms that his Vista SP1 can access our .255 router via SSH.
Mike Lewinski wrote:
The TCP/IP stack in Windows XP is broken in this regard, possibly in
Vista as well, though I've yet to have the displeasure of finding out.
A co-worker confirms that his Vista SP1 can access our .255 router via SSH.
Aww, that's too bad. I've long enjoyed setting
Mike Lewinski wrote:
David Hubbard wrote:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
today. From two of four
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:43:36 -0700
Kameron Gasso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
go-go-actiontec (vol sends those out, god do they suck...)
Crappy CPE's are exactly why we don't hand out .0 and .255 addresses in
our DHCP pools. :(
--
Kameron Gasso | Senior Systems
Funny this discussion surfaced now - I got bitten by this recently.
Was using .255 for NAT on a secondary firewall. When the primary
failed over, parts of the Internet became unreachable...
Tim:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Mark Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:43:36
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2008-06-14:
RFC1519 is 15 years old now. I *still* heard a trainer (in a Cisco
class no less) mention class A/B/C in the last few months. Some evil
will obviously take generations to fully stamp out.
We've faced two issues with .255 and .0:
- Using /31 links
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 03:08:47PM -0400, David Hubbard wrote:
I remember back in the day of old hardware and operating
systems we'd intentionally avoid using .255 IP addresses
for anything even when the netmask on our side would have
made it fine, so I just thought I'd try it out for kicks
15 matches
Mail list logo
