nanog mailing list archives
Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
From: Ken Chase <math () sizone org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:03:13 -0500
Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade themselves to a new firmware that the devs released posthaste to handle them properly... I like your upgrade-by-force ideas! (no, I do. Screw bad implimentations, let them be binned!) (Tell me about your v6 adoption plans now.) The Win95 thing was just a personal example of how these things can express themselves... was a good laugh at the time. The incidence and hilarity of similar events has not materially changed in the intervening decades, we'll all note. Have fun with your .0's people! Let us know how your support dept likes em. /kc On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:47:09PM +0000, Job Snijders said: >On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase <math () sizone org> wrote: >> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs? >> >> lots of other ranges you could probably use safely. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses >> >> Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices >> of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever collision >> avoidance, but relies on a prayer. > >Please stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about valid CIDR >addresses. :-) > >> (IIRC try setting an NS record to resolve to 127.0.0.255 on windows 95 - it >> used to lock the OS up.... fun times. Someone had pointed some popular domain >> at us by accident, and having no entry and no negative caching of the day >> meant we were being hammerred on our 10mbps uplink, had to set something to >> get cached, so we did... several hours later a microsoft engineer called us >> and pleaded with us to use a different IP. :) > >Microsoft ended support for Windows 95 on December 31th 2001.... > >Kind regards, > >Job -- Ken Chase - Guelph Canada
Current thread:
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32, (continued)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Jason Kuehl (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 valdis . kletnieks (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 10)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ken Chase (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Job Snijders (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ken Chase (Dec 08)
- RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Kate Gerry (Dec 08)
- RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Keith Medcalf (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)