Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <job () 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 :)