[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 20:13:54 +0000
- In-reply-to: <CAL9jLaZvb-6EL1b1N0w317t=kfbWwJYwK+Uke_89caDb-Dw56w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAMFTxdRiV-_yHBJYpvewTVU=S=NOJvqTGzQhUSVpk3s1kNMARw@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC8mAOR2-jsPhE4j-M-uuXNt=bxdo6RB=pZmaQxCQYW5KA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZvb-6EL1b1N0w317t=kfbWwJYwK+Uke_89caDb-Dw56w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 :)
>
It is 2017... if you encounter such platforms you take them out back and
â??set them freeâ??. :-)
We can, and must, expect CIDR compliance these days.
Kind regards,
Job