nanog mailing list archives
Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
From: Mike Jones <mike () mikejones in>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:18:43 +0100
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw <laidlaw () consecro com> wrote:
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable. Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not a valid address on a remote network? if you have a route to it then it is a valid address that you should be able to exchange packets with, any assumptions beyond that are almost certainly going to be wrong somewhere. Even if they did happen to correctly guess what sized subnets a remote network is using and what type of access media that remote network is using, I am pretty sure it would be wrong to assume that these addresses can't be accessed remotely considering the only address that is currently defined :) I really hope this is down to some kind of bug and not something someone did deliberately. - Mike
Current thread:
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?, (continued)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? bmanning (Oct 24)
- RE: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? David Hubbard (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Joe Greco (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Mark Andrews (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Joe Greco (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Mark Andrews (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Jimmy Hess (Oct 22)
- Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Andy Smith (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Rob Laidlaw (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Sander Steffann (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Andy Smith (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Mike Jones (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Marc Storck (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Joel Maslak (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?) Rob Laidlaw (Oct 23)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? Sander Steffann (Oct 24)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Scott Weeks (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? Justin Krejci (Oct 22)
- Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses? james machado (Oct 23)