nanog mailing list archives
Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years?
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:35:44 +0200
* Valdis Kletnieks:
RFC1519 is 15 years old now. I *still* heard a trainer (in a Cisco class no less) mention class A/B/C in the last few months. Some evil will obviously take generations to fully stamp out.
You need to know something about classes when you deal with Cisco gear because IOS strips prefix lengths on output if they match the length implied by the class.
Current thread:
- .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? David Hubbard (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Christopher Morrow (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? David Andersen (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Peter Dambier (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Kameron Gasso (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Mark Smith (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Tim Durack (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Christopher Morrow (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? David Coulson (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Mike Lewinski (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? William Allen Simpson (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Jared (Jun 13)
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Greg VILLAIN (Jun 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: .255 addresses still not usable after all these years? Scott Weeks (Jun 14)