> and the people who have spent dozens of years seeing the worst of what the internet has to offer both treat them as sacred cows
...a lot of them just didn't update their knowledge over time.
> and the people who have spent dozens of years seeing the worst of what the internet has to offer both treat them as sacred cows
...a lot of them just didn't update their knowledge over time.
- Newbies see .0 and .255 as special
- We learn about CIDR, and there's nothing special about a .0 in the middle of a large block.
- Then we get zapped by weird connectivity problems or tools that don't let us enter the address because it fails "validation," etc.
Then we think... does our DHCP range really need to cross the boundary when we have a /23? Maybe we should just have two DHCP ranges with a little hole in the middle. It's less than 1% of addresses...
The behavior of arbitrarily rejecting .0 has gotten a lot rarer in the wild lately. (I can confirm that because I've done a whole bunch of connectivity tests to .0 addresses, including using RIPE Atlas.)
More likely to be a slightly fancy switch, or terrible CPE for DSL/Cable.
Experienced engineers understood that .0 and .255 are actually handled differently in the real-world, so they make sure to avoid them.
"Reality sucks, deal with it"
Newbies who just read the specs and learnt from classrooms are tricked into believing that .0 and .255 are the same. Which is true on paper, but not true in reality.
I tend to run /30 as the smallest because of that (no sudden surprises if a piece of gear doesn't support the extension)
I think last time I used it there were a few bugs around redistribution. I tend to use private IPs, certainly for p2ps, so a /30 is fine