On 12.12.2016 15:44, Brandon Philips wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:41:52 -0800, Brandon Philips wrote: >>> The issue we have: when creating the VXLAN interface and assigning it >>> an address we see a broadcast route being added by the Kernel. For >>> example if we have 10.4.0.0/16 a broadcast route to 10.4.0.0 is >>> created. This route is unwanted because we assign 10.4.0.0 to one of >>> our VXLAN interfaces. >> >> Are you saying you're trying to assign the IP address 10.4.0.0/16 as a >> unicast address to an interface? Then you'll run into way more problems >> than the one you're describing. You can't have host part of the IP >> address consisting of all zeros (or all ones). Just don't do it. Choose >> a valid IP address instead. > > Yes, this is what we are doing; it is because of an upstream, to us, > address assignment so I will figure it out upstream. > > Regardless, it is hard to find an RFC that says "simply don't do this > because _____". The closest I could find was RFC 922 after sending > this which says: > > "There is probably no reason for such addresses to appear anywhere but > as the source address of an ICMP Information".
Alternatively you can renumber the network to use /32 and add the unicast routes for your /16 yourself. Bye, Hannes
