On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 07:22:35PM +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> Dear dnsmasq community,
>
> The changelog for version 2.47 contains the following:
>
> Don't dynamically allocate DHCP addresses which may break
> Windows. Addresses which end in .255 or .0 are broken in
> Windows even when using supernetting.
> --dhcp-range=192.168.0.1,192.168.1.254,255,255,254.0 means
> 192.168.0.255 is a valid IP address, but not for Windows.
> See Microsoft KB281579. We therefore no longer allocate
> these addresses to avoid hard-to-diagnose problems.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken the listed Microsoft KB applies only to Windows
> versions that are long since past end of support. Furthermore, CIDR
> was introduced by the IETF more than 30 years ago.
>
> I was therefore wondering whether it is time to retire the special
> treatment of addresses ending in .0 or .255 in Class C address ranges.
[1][4]
It is OK to wonder, it is better to go beyond wondering. Either accept
what has been observed, or dive deeper into it.
And it is OK to render the special treatment of address ending in .0 or
.255 in /23 networks or even larger networks as "to be retired". Then
the adventure realy begins. Dive in the source, find the place (find the
placesss???) where the exception is implented and remove it. `make` and
test it. Most likely it will take several iterations (don't expect
"first time right"). The "it works for me" reward can get as next
reward the warm feeling of "I was able to give back" [2].
> Many thanks, Jan
You are welcome [3]
Groeten
Geert Stappers
[1] I could not resist to ignore the posting,
hence te long "the posting has been seen".
[2] I'm hinting on a patch.
[3] Feel free to come with follow-up-questions.
[4] It doesn't matter when Class C address ranges were retired.
--
Silence is hard to parse
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
