nanog mailing list archives

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

From: "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <nanog () radu-adrian feurdean net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:29:37 +0100

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 21:02, Job Snijders wrote:

Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
(/32 or /128).


https://labs-pre.ripe.net/Members/stephane_bortzmeyer/all-ip-addresses-are-equal-dot-zero-addresses-are-less-equal

For a host route, no problem. For the host itself - a slightly different
story.

Current thread:

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Hunter Fuller (Dec 08)
  - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Job Snijders (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Christopher Morrow (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Job Snijders (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Radu-Adrian Feurdean (Dec 15)
  - 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)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- 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)

(Thread continues...)