Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
From: james machado <hvgeekwtrvl () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:48:32 -0700

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:
Matt Addison wrote the following on 8/29/2012 6:08 PM:

Sent from my mobile device, so please excuse any horrible misspellings.

On Aug 29, 2012, at 18:30, james machado <hvgeekwtrvl () gmail com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, STARNES, CURTIS
<Curtis.Starnes () granburyisd org> wrote:

Sorry for the top post...

Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;

We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through AT&T, not
broken up into smaller announcements.
Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints that some of our
client systems were having problems connecting to different web sites.
After much troubleshooting I noticed that in every instance the xlate in
our Cisco ASA for the client's IP last octet was either a 0 or 255.
Since I am announcing our network as a /19, the subnet mask is, that would make our network address x.x.192.0 and the
broadcast x.x.223.255.
So somewhere the /24 boundary addresses were being dropped.

Just curious if anyone else has seen this before.

some OS's by M and others as well as some devices have IP stacks which
will not send or receive unicast packets ending in 0 or 255.  have had
casses where someone was doing subnets that included those in the DCHP
scopes and the computers that received these addresses were black


MSKB 281579 affects XP home and below. Good times anytime someone adds
a .0 or .255 into an IP pool.

It might be relevant to note that XP and below is simply respecting classful
boundaries. This does not affect all .0 or .255 address, just class C
addresses ( through that end with .0 or .255. If
your IP range is - you are not affected (by this
particular bug) by using .0 or .255 as the last octet unless the address is
ALSO the last octet of the classful boundary for your subnet. In effect,
these OS's simply enforce classful boundaries regardless of the subnet mask
you have set. As the KB states, this "bug" affects supernets only. I'm not
trying to defend MS (they can do that themselves), but your statement was

I can distinctly remember having the issue in 10/8 address space with
Win2k and WinXP

We do, sometimes, use .0 and .255 addresses. Most clients work fine with
them (including XP). However, I have personally seen a few networks where an
administrator had blocked .0 and .255 addresses, causing problems for people
on his network communicating to hosts that ended in .0 or .255. It has been
years since I have seen an issue with a .0 or a .255 IP however. Given fears
over IP shortages, even a couple percent of addresses wasted due to
subnetting can be cause for adjusting network policy. I would not be
surprised if folks who excluded .0 and .255 addresses from their assignable
pools will re-evaluate that decision over the next few years.


  By Date           By Thread  

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