[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: nanog at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian Feurdean)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:29:37 +0100
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 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 host itself - a slightly different
story.

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)
- Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
  - From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders)

Prev by Date: UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers?
Next by Date: Free access to measurement network
Previous by thread: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Next by thread: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread