Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
From: "James R. Fisher" <JFISHER () OMEGA7 WR USGS GOV>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:35:20 -0800 (PST)

I have had just the opposite experience; my local LAN is w.x.48.0/20 , and so
I have 15 perfectly good w.x.y.0 and w.x.y.255 addresses other than the
wire/broadcast addresses. I have assigned most of them to a variety of machines,
and so far the only grok-failure came from Windows95 boxen, which dislike
w.x.y.255 . This is not altogether surprising, given MS's notable proficiency
in networking...
-jrf
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 11:41 AM 1/22/98 -0500, Eric Osborne wrote:
In other words, I can't prevent my customers from sending packets to
a broadcast address, esp. on a subnet smaller than /24.  You might be
able to block outgoing packets for destination x.y.z.255, but if you've got
a mask >/24 (/23, etc..), couldn't .255 be a valid host address?

Yes, it could be, actually.  I tried to use it as WAN pool address once
though and it horrendously confused the RAS, as well as several UNIX boxen
on the network.



**************************************************************
Justin W. Newton                        voice: +1-650-482-2840  
Senior Network Architect                  fax: +1-650-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.                    http://www.priori.net
Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C   http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
**************************************************************


  By Date           By Thread  

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