nanog mailing list archives

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

From: Job Snijders <job () instituut net>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:02:24 +0000

Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route
(/32 or /128).

Current thread:

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Hunter Fuller (Dec 08)
  - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Job Snijders (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Christopher Morrow (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Job Snijders (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Radu-Adrian Feurdean (Dec 15)
  - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Jason Kuehl (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 valdis . kletnieks (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)
  - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 William Herrin (Dec 08)
    - Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32 Ryan Hamel (Dec 08)

(Thread continues...)