Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1605
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.networking |
|---|---|
| From | Mike Lovell <dev.null@b0h0.com> |
| Subject | Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! |
| References | <slrnk3drvp.1eu.dev.null@usenet.home.b0h0.com> <slrnk3eajg.ph6.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| Organization | home.b0h0.com |
| Message-ID | <slrnk3f8r7.1s4.dev.null@usenet.home.b0h0.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2012-08-24 10:53 -0500 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-08-24, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-24, Mike Lovell wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I've got a guy who claims these: >> >> 10.255.255.81/24 >> 192.168.255.81/24 >> >> Are invalid unicast IP's, because any IP with a "255" in it *anywhere* >> is reserved for being a broadcast IP. > ... >> And of course the RFC says it's fine to use a "255" in the 1st to 3rd >> octets. Nothing about this is reserved or makes the address >> specifically a broadcast one. > ... >> Am I correct (the IP's are valid) > > If you really have found it stated in the RFCs and the RFCs are not > obsoleted by later ones, of course you are right and don't have to ask > around. The guy rejects the RFC! "I also find it amusing that the stupid fuck is arguing with a J. Postel RFC that is 21 years old. :)" Then goes on to say he's worked on IT for 40 years, yata-yata-yata I thought I would take it to a networking group (not sure which is the most active network group) and check. > (Why stop at octets 1--3, by the way? Surely a.b.c.255 can be a valid > unicast address too?) No reason, just I mentioned octet 4 earlier up the post (because of the WIKI cite). So that's a given. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iJwEAQECAAYFAlA3o2UACgkQRuP0ePfiZW60ewQAzkG04X/n322MUyvss9qmGsjE qRoThAhiCCfDvn7/+S7whyxv0N+G25CdubyEhSS8/hWde4GGO8LQX7rTMfUSzGR3 jn+rWNAqUHFFtauo6fGkyzIEJYtYaEQrU9LkXPXwuIhPQxV7gvVfhx5N+zo89o3N Hb4EOaW/bCVxHiwqNhw= =XFwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Mike Lovell <dev.null@b0h0.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:05 +0200
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-24 07:17 +0000
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-08-24 10:29 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Mike Lovell <dev.null@b0h0.com> - 2012-08-24 10:53 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2012-08-24 14:02 -0400
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-24 20:21 +0000
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-08-24 09:07 +0100
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! telsar <noone@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-24 12:09 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-08-24 14:29 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! telsar <noone@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-24 15:58 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-24 22:23 +0000
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! telsar <noone@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-25 12:40 -0500
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-08-25 09:38 +0100
Re: Dealing with a network knowledge troll! telsar <noone@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-25 12:35 -0500
csiph-web