On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
Various people I've asked about this have said they wouldn't use the .0 or .255 addresses themselves, though couldn't present any concrete info about why not; my experience above would seem to suggest a reason not to use them.
This comes up every year or two on nanog; it's discouraging that operators and/or vendors are still screwing this up over a decade after RFC 1519. Thus spake "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
This is what happens when your educational system continues to teach classful routing as anything other than a HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE *coughCiscocough*. This is also how you end up with 76k /24s in the global routing table.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
Do you part to help control the ignorant population: whenever you hear someone say "class [ABC]" in reference to anything other than a historical allocation, smack them. Hard.
It seems to be pretty common usage now to refer to a /24 as a "Class C", regardless of the first octet. Certainly incorrect, but half as many syllables... S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov