Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: Andrew Smith <awsmith () rip ops neosoft com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:18:49 -0500 (CDT)

 
As far as .0 and .255 addresses go, I'm no more "asking for trouble" by
using those than I'm asking for trouble by running an IRC server.  They
are completely valid addresses.  Perhaps those making such comments are
better at getting IP space than we are, but we need to squeeze every IP we
possibly can into use just to provide enough addresses to our customers.

Not to make this note a total flame ... but are you really honestly
trying to say that ARIN won't give you more addresses if you don't
use .0 and .255 addresses on all /23 and larger prefixes?

Out of all the /17-/23 prefixes out there on the net, what percentage
would people say are truely used on a network in "classful supernet"
configurations. Out of that percentage, what percent of those are in
such a dire situation with their past network allocation history that
their future allocations depend on actually allocating and using, in a
production environment, 510 addresses out of a /23 instead of a mere 508? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ** Andrew W. Smith ** awsmith () neosoft com ** Chief Network Engineer **
    ** http://www.neosoft.com/neosoft/staff/andrew ** 1-888-NEOSOFT **
       ** "Opportunities multiply as they are seized" - Sun Tzu **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  By Date           By Thread  

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