single or multiple range statement

[George C. Kaplan]

Simon Hobson wrote:

> However, you would be better advised to use :
> 
>       range 10.10.16.1  10.10.16.254
>       range 10.10.17.1  10.10.17.254
> and so on
> 
> The reason is that there are some faulty IP stacks out in the real 
> world which are written on the assumption that things are using class 
> C networks - hence .0 would be the network, and .255 the broadcast 
> address. SInce there are a small number of devices that can't cope 
> with having a .0 or .255, it will save hassles to avoid them in case 
> you ever get one of these devices on your network.

Is this really a problem nowadays?  We have a few address pools that
span a /24 boundary, and we haven't bothered to skip over the .0 and
.255 addresses.  I don't recall ever getting trouble report for any of
these addresses.  Has anyone else on this list run across clients
(recently) that couldn't handle a .0 or .255 address?

-- 
George C. Kaplan                            gckaplan at ack.berkeley.edu
Communication & Network Services            510-643-0496
University of California at Berkeley