[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: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:09:57 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CACWOCC8mAOR2-jsPhE4j-M-uuXNt=bxdo6RB=pZmaQxCQYW5KA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAMFTxdRiV-_yHBJYpvewTVU=S=NOJvqTGzQhUSVpk3s1kNMARw@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC8mAOR2-jsPhE4j-M-uuXNt=bxdo6RB=pZmaQxCQYW5KA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> 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 addresses being used as
host addresses...
At least some windows platforms balked at .0 or .255 host addresses (even
if that address was 'off-net' from them).
maybe this is all history though :)