Performance... no more than 150 leases per second?

[David W. Hankins]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 08:56:57PM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Randall C Grimshaw wrote:
>> Similarly, a range such as 192.168.3.2 192.168.4.253 still has the ability 
>> to deliver an address such as 192.168.3.255 or 192.168.4.0 which drives 
>> client ip stacks insane.
>
> There are still clients with that problem ? The mind boggles, but then we 
> have developers at work now having to come to terms with there being 
> browsers other than IE6 on Windows :-/

I'm not sure if there are still clients around with that problem.  The
only problem I've ever had with allocating .0 addresses to end users
was that sometimes the more specific route for the customer would
conflict with an aggregate route's 'route name' in e.g. the OSPF link
state table (so 10.0.2.0/32 conflicts with 10.0.2.0/23).

-- 
David W. Hankins	BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer		There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		http://bind10.isc.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20100610/f77363fd/attachment.bin>