<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

Though this space is "reserved for future addressing modes", I see no reason<br>
why it is "bogus", especially when routers perfectly accept them.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I'd say their behaviour is undefined--do routers just use them like unicast addresses?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Reserved for future use is still the status according to IANA:<br></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml</a></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Hardcoding anything that is not loopback is bad idea, IMHO.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>There are lists and documents about special-purpose IPv4 addresses. In fact, the IANA keeps a list of them:</div><div><a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml">https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml</a></div><div><br></div><div>I'd say BIRD should generally follow RFCs and object to using addresses contrary to their standard meaning.  Calling <a href="http://240.0.0.0/4">240.0.0.0/4</a> "bogus" is too strong. "Undefined" would be a better, and probably as a (strong) warning.<br></div><div><br></div>Cheers,<br></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">     Jonathan</div>
</div></div>