Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

OG [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 1

RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

--- 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 ToiletPap

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!)

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

+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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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 stati

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

). 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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

.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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

>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.

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

> 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...@quadr

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

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),

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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

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 >

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

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