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.
The main problem is the classfull behavior of windows tcp/ip stack and DUN for the ipcp negotiated address. It's sure that you can't use network and broadcast address of an old natural network if running MS Windows & DUN. Assingnament of the correct netmask can't be used as workaround because in traditional ppp the mask is not negotiated ( netmask assignament in ipcp is a very new feature ). Félix