ok... so lets look at some space here. 98.32.0.0/22 98.32.0.0/32 is clearly on the unusable boundary. what about 98.32.0.255/32 & 98.32.1.0/32 ??? 98.32.4.255/32 is also clearly on the unusable boundary... UNTIL the delegation moves from a /22 to a /21. Then its usable. clear? thought so. /bill On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:00:53PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Job Snijders
In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel situation. Ok, enough snarkyness!
Quite recently a participant of the NLNOG RING had a problem related to an .255 IP address. You can read more about it here: https://ring.nlnog.net/news/2012/10/ring-success-the-ipv4-255-problem/
AIUI, that particular problem couldn't be blamed on lack of CIDR support either, as 91.218.150.255 is (was) a class A address. It would have had to be 91.255.255.255 or 91.0.0.0 for it to be special in the classful pre-CIDR world.
That said, it's rather common for people to believe that a /24 anywhere in the IPv4 address space is a +class C; so I'm not really surprised.
-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/