[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

Subject: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:02:24 +0000
In-reply-to: <CAMFTxdRiV-_yHBJYpvewTVU=S=NOJvqTGzQhUSVpk3s1kNMARw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <CAMFTxdRiV-_yHBJYpvewTVU=S=NOJvqTGzQhUSVpk3s1kNMARw@mail.gmail.com>

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

Follow-Ups:
- Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
- Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  - From: nanog at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian Feurdean)

References:
- Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  - From: Ryan.Hamel at quadranet.com (Ryan Hamel)
- Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  - From: hf0002+nanog at uah.edu (Hunter Fuller)

Prev by Date: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Next by Date: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Previous by thread: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Next by thread: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread