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....

Same for a /12, which is RFC1918. -------- Original message -------- From: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu Date: 12/8/17 1:46 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Ryan Hamel <Ryan.Hamel@quadranet.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 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....