On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:39:51 CDT, Jack Bates said:
On 10/20/2011 4:03 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
"You should expect<our prefix>.1 to respond to ping and such, but not 2<our prefix>.0 as that is only capable of representing a subnet and not a network interface of any kind, or any machine, at all"
Honestly, though. Can you blame them in this case? Given the lack of insight into your network, I also might question your numbering system
Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255. But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal .0 and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255, because there are *still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"... What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly via the code they write... ;)