![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: kline () uiuc edu (Charley Kline)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:31:47 -0400
there have been several documented problems over the years with using these addresses with certain OSes, and it's fairly sure that they will continue to have problems. One can also make a reasonable case that it's worth the administrative benefits to not use these addresses.
The only subset of documented problems I'd agree with is trying to supernet class C's into larger blocks. But that wasn't what I was talking about. It's a shame that we went through so much trouble to remove classfulness and artificial byte boundaries in address space only to have them be reinserted and carried forth forever with ad hoc policy like this. I understand your point about tradeoffs of administrative benefits, but in this case it seems particularly ill-advised to promulgate brain- damage and justify it by saying "well, broken hosts didn't get fixed fast enough, so we may as well continue the tradition." /cvk
Current thread:
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list, (continued)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list jlixfeld (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list barton (Apr 12)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Chris Liljenstolpe (Apr 13)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Vadim Antonov (Apr 13)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Hank Nussbacher (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Forrest W. Christian (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list jlixfeld (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Dean Anderson (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Forrest W. Christian (Apr 14)