I just don't understand why the network gods at Cisco thought it would be acceptable to utilize 1.1.1.1 as a non routeable IP address.... why didn't they use something in 169.254.0.0/16 ?
Edit: rfc3927 states "addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix SHOULD NOT be configured manually...." So that's out but, they still could have used something in the 192.0.2.0/24 range.
No comments:
Post a Comment