nanog mailing list archives
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
From: abuse () cabal org uk (Peter Corlett)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:12:01 +0000 (UTC)
Stephen J. Wilcox <steve () telecomplete co uk> wrote: [...]
I currently have a few .255/32s with Cisco and Foundry products and have various windows/linux/OSX machines that access them without problems..
Well, I'd expect Linux and OSX to do the right thing. It just seems to be Windows that makes a complete sow's ear of it. As to the IP addresses ending in 255 that are working from Windows boxes, would I be right in guessing that the first octet of the IP addresses in question is between 1 and 191? -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse () mooli org uk for full key
Current thread:
- The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jonathan McDowell (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Tony Li (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jon Lewis (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Peter Corlett (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Paul Jakma (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jon Lewis (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Jon Lewis (Jun 27)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. william(at)elan.net (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. Howard C. Berkowitz (Jun 26)
- Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses. sthaug (Jun 27)