A subnet mask As a subnet mask it is represented as a /32 in the CIDR notation. It has two purposes primarily which are : 1. However I thought I' d save anyone else from spending time chasing this lost sheep by declaring it on the forum as opposed to entering the trouble as a fault. Answer (1 of 5): 255.255.255.255 is an ipv4 address also termed a broadcast address.

Not a big oversight and if it is fixed in 2.9-private-beta or 3.0-public-beta - then all is well. I' ve tried firewall policies, policy routeing (all 1s addresses are invalid for acceptance), and static routeing (still creates a session table entry even if the host is unreachable by pointing to a next hop that isn' t resolvable). If=port_ha family=00 type=1 index=9 mtu=1496 link=0 master=0 If=internal family=00 type=1 index=6 mtu=1500 link=0 master=0 If=dmz2 family=00 type=1 index=5 mtu=1500 link=0 master=0 If=dmz1 family=00 type=1 index=4 mtu=1500 link=0 master=0 If=wan2 family=00 type=1 index=3 mtu=1500 link=0 master=0 If=wan1 family=00 type=1 index=2 mtu=1500 link=0 master=0 I cannot tell what the packet was trying to do without sniffing it further - which I didn' t do.ДЇamily=02 tab=254 vf=0 type=03 tos=0 gwy=0.0.0.0 prefsrc=10.100.15.137Д¬i: ref=2 lastused=649 expire=0 err=00000000 used=0 br=0 pmtu=1500 The first and last of the range are reserved addresses, giving 6 usable addresses that may be assigned to a device. However I wouldn' t want it to burn up one of my session table entries and felt that I couldn' t do anything about it. In this case, the netmask of 255.255.255.248 represents 29 bits of network and 3 bits of host (totalling 32 bits, of course), and this give 8 possible IP addresses in this range. Should an all 1s broadcast go anywhere, or was it being dumped in the bit bucket by if=root. However irrespective of the rules that I entered using match addresses as host 0.0.0.0 and host 255.255.255.255 - the flow always appeared on the session table (with a counter of 30 seconds). I used the CLI ' diag netlink rtcache list' command to give me a clue (looking at the number that occured after the symbol Worst still, I couldn' t quosh it using the policy statements - which I am guessing is a result of this type of communication not being catered for within the policy engine in this quite recent release. I had a UDP session running that I couldn' t fathom the source of.

255 255 255 255 ip