On 14/11/2012 09:35, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported
by pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a
justification and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything
that suggests there's a good reason which indicates 0/8 shouldn't be
used or supported. -sc
It's official registration is for "self identification", "this"
network doesn't mean the connected network.
All in all, even allowing an address in 0/8 to be configured is a bug
based on both a) the various RFCs and intended use and b) that's how
everyone else accepts that it should work anyway, so RFC is
irrelevant in that case.
I think that's incorrect. 127/8 is used for hosts local to a physical
server and 0/8 was intended for hosts "local to a network." In my
definition, "this network" is data center-local, however there's
nothing preventing that IP address range from being rack-local either,
etc. 0.0.0.0/32 is a shortcut for saying "me on this network," which
makes sense in the context of the wording in RFC 5735. Again, section
3 paragraph 1:
0.0.0.0/8 - Addresses in this block refer to source hosts on "this"
network. Address 0.0.0.0/32 may be used as a source address for this
host on this network; other addresses within 0.0.0.0/8 may be used to
refer to specified hosts on this network ([RFC1122], Section
3.2.1.3).
In environments where DNS is an extra service that requires
justification and would be an additional service that has to be
secured, exclusive use of well known IP addresses is both convenient
and useful, and the 0/8 network seems to have been defined for exactly
this purpose. I admit the address range isn't in wide use atm, but I
don't see a reason for it to not be.
The fix Andre made appears to be correct, and IMO, should be merged in
to -head and MFC'ed.
http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/FreeBSD/svnews/index.py?r=242956
I agree, but I want to check how Linux and Windows behave first.
Andre,
On Linux it correctly returns invalid argument, on Winsock its
explicitly invalid[1], on every network vendor I have tested it on, it
is invalid.
Enabling this not only breaks compatibility with *everything* else, but
also hasn't been tested and the ramifications on applications hasn't
been checked, either.
Suggest user use an appropriate range from one of the 10 listed as
reserved/special and retain the same behaviour as all the other platforms.
[1]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/ms738586(v=vs.85).aspx
(MS has the closest to "proper" behaviour IMO, Linux also behaves in a
similar fashion however doesn't prevent the user from adding a 0/8
address to an interface, it just doesn't work)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
