Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: kline () uiuc edu (Charley Kline)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:00:33 -0400

No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if
you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may
break, and you deserve what you get.

Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or
experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of
less than 1% of usable address space.


What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking
perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains
for a proper solution?

Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a
quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255
addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply
say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated
classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless.
We all said so.

Dissapointed,

/cvk


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]