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 ho
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Greetings,
A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, to
have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest server.
While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I don't feel
this sho
: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Job
>Snijders
>Sent: Friday, 8 December, 2017 15:47
>To: Ken Chase
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
>
>On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
>> why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs?
&
age-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Chase
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Job Snijders
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the
ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade
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
+1 for gross comment.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Hunter Fuller wrote:
> I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules
> I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.)
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > A
el
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +, Ryan Hamel said:
> Greetings,
> A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address,
> to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest
>
g about anycast).
Original message
From: William Herrin
Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Ryan Hamel
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel
mailto:ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>> wrote:
> 1. A single known ip addre
PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Ryan Hamel
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel
mailto:ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>> wrote:
A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32<http://172.16.0.0/32> to a
usable IP address, to h
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase 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 s
72.16
>address anyway...
>
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> ---- Original message
>> From: William Herrin
>> Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: Ryan Hamel
>> Cc: nanog@nan
---
> From: William Herrin
> Date: 12/8/17 1:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Ryan Hamel
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel
> wrote:
> > 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo
server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by
static route.
Hi Ryan,
Maybe if would help if you write the extended version because that's about
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel
wrote:
> A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP
> address, to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions
> closest server. While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what
> not), I don't feel thi
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders 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 whic
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders 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
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +, Ryan Hamel said:
> Greetings,
> A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address,
> to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest
> server.
> While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I
Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
(/32 or /128).
I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules
I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP
> address, to have a single k
Greetings,
A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, to
have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest server.
While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I don't feel
this should be the proper IP address used, but so
20 matches
Mail list logo
