On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:26:08PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
There is no reason to disallow the former class e address space, except in a bogon file.
Hi
static inline int ip4_is_unicast(ip4_addr a) -{ return _I(a) < 0xe0000000; } +{ return _I(a) < 0xe0000000 || (_I(a) >= 0xf0000000 && _I(a) != 0xffffffff); }
Well, this summarises the reason why to disallow former class E address space. If these addresses are not defined / reserved for future use, how can we say that they are unicast and not multicast or for some complete different but not yet defined purpose? IMHO first should IETF redefine it as a regular unicast range, then routing software should change its behavior. Please correct me if that already happened. OTOH, perhaps we could allow all possible routes regardless of address classification (even for prefixes from multicast range) in routing table. OSes allow that and sometimes even uses that (e.g. route for multicast range in regular unicast table is used for selection of default multcast interface on clients). -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."