This is issue but not routing-wg's... We noticed this problem some time ago. First we thought that the problem is in the BRAS equipment but it's not. It seems to be that site's behind broken firewalls which refuses the connection from x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 addresses. We haven't been able to find out which vendors break classless ip. If there is Firewall WG in IETF, it would be the correct place for this topic... Regards, Jarno Lähteenmäki Jon Lawrence wrote:
On Sunday 12 September 2004 18:05, Volodymyr Yakovenko wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I am trying to push one BIG telecom equipment vendor TAC to consider wrong situation with assignment of IP addresses like xxx.xxx.xxx.0 and xxx.xxx.xxx.255 from dynamic IP pools bigger than or equal to /24.
Quick googling has not shown any STD or BCP documents, which could be used as reference, but has shown number of pages, saying something like "do not use .0 or .255 addresses, it could cause problems".
Without doubt, the pools must be bigger than /24 in order for .0 or .255 to be used as host addresses. Never tried it personally, but I can see no reason why .0.255 or .1.0 wouldn't be usable in a .0.0/23 - obviously assuming that you pass /23 to the hosts as a netmask.
Jon