nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24)
From: Jeremy Visser <jeremy.visser () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:31:14 +1000
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:26 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera () gmail com> wrote:
Also .0 and .1. Yes, there was some kind of a strange behavior with those addresses before. We excluded those from rotation back in 2011 when that was really biting us. There's an impression that this issue has become much less troubling over the years, didn't have time to investigate though.
Yep, I once had a customer (circa 2013–2014) who couldn't load https://www.stgeorge.com.au/ because they (a PPP–based user, where addressing is point to point, effectively /32 each end if you like) had an IP address ending in .0, despite it being in the middle of an otherwise larger pool. Some middlebox forming opinions about an address it has no business forming an opinion about.
Current thread:
- IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Andrey Khomyakov (Sep 14)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Warren Kumari (Sep 14)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Tom Hill (Sep 14)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Töma Gavrichenkov (Sep 14)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Jeremy Visser (Sep 15)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Mark Andrews (Sep 14)
- Re: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Robert L Mathews (Sep 14)
- RE: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Brian Turnbow via NANOG (Sep 15)
- RE: IP addresses on subnet edge (/24) Joe Klein (Sep 15)