mailing list archives
Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:59:41 -0400
On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 04:00:33PM -0400, Charley Kline wrote:
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.
Watch your quoting, Charley; I said the first thing; someone else the
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?
The problem is one of leverage, Charley. If I do assign .255 to a
host, then I'm at the mercey of the entire friggin Internet. If I
_don't_... then I'm in control.
Yes, it's ugly, but (as they used to say in the navy) "that's fine
sonny, but this here's the Fleet."
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.
Welcome to the real world. Not everyone has those "you must be this
tall to ride this ride" signs on their downlinks. Sorry.
-- jr "it's rarely productive to argue with the weather" a
Jay R. Ashworth jra () baylink com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com