Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32
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 something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example). I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an RFC1918 range. Thanks, -- Ryan Hamel ryan.hamel@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372 QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
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 <Ryan.Hamel@quadranet.com> 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 should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).
I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an RFC1918 range.
Thanks,
-- Ryan Hamel ryan.hamel@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372 <(888)%20578-2372> QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
--
-- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure
+1 for gross comment. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog@uah.edu> 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 <Ryan.Hamel@quadranet.com> 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 should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).
I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an RFC1918 range.
Thanks,
-- Ryan Hamel ryan.hamel@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372 <(888)%20578-2372> QuadraNet, Inc. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
--
-- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331
Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure
-- Sincerely, Jason W Kuehl Cell 920-419-8983 jason.w.kuehl@gmail.com
Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route (/32 or /128).
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> 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 addresses... At least some windows platforms balked at .0 or .255 host addresses (even if that address was 'off-net' from them). maybe this is all history though :)
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> 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 addresses...
At least some windows platforms balked at .0 or .255 host addresses (even if that address was 'off-net' from them).
maybe this is all history though :)
It is 2017... if you encounter such platforms you take them out back and “set them free”. :-) We can, and must, expect CIDR compliance these days. Kind regards, Job
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-e... For a host route, no problem. For the host itself - a slightly different story.
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +0000, 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 don't feel this should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).
Probably depends on what your colleague is trying to do. Nothing in the rules says the .0 address on a subnet is reserved (though you're in for a surprise if there's any gear still on the net with a 4.2BSD stack).
I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an RFC1918 range.
At some point, some chucklehead is going to look at that .0.0 and mentally think /16, and things will go pear-shaped pretty quickly....
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel <Ryan.Hamel@quadranet.com> 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 this should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).
Hi Ryan, Some clarifications: 1. You say, "static routed to a regions closest server." What do you mean by that? A static-routed anycast address? 2. In what reachability context? Is this a private network? An ISP network where the reachability should be the ISP and its customers? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
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 should be the proper IP address used, but something more feasible like a usable IP in a dedicated range (172.31.0.0/24 for example).
I would to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as this the first IP address in an RFC1918 range.
Last time I tried using the first address of a classful address block (which 172.16.0.0/32 would be) in Cisco IOS (classic), that didn't work properly. This was in IOS 12.0.x. You can't set up BGP peers to something in the network address in classful network space, for instance. So 172.16.0.0/32 or 172.16.255.255/32 wouldn't work (because it's first and last address of class B space), but 172.16.1.0 worked just fine (because in class B space, 172.16.1.0 isn't special). So while this has been allowed per standardssince mid 90:ties, it's not obvious that it'll work in all operating systems that might still be in use. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (9)
-
Christopher Morrow -
Hunter Fuller -
Jason Kuehl -
Job Snijders -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Ryan Hamel -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin