> > There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain > assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with > a header that defines .. >
Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source projects to do the same. It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification. On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler <i...@protected-networks.net> wrote: > On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Karim- > > > > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context. > > > > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly > > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, > > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many > > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened, > > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future. > > While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private > setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. > > There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain > assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with > a header that defines .. > > #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) > > Michael > >
