Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-30 Thread Jan Ceuleers
On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote: > Downsides to this proposed change. > > 1) Old versions of Windows might break. > 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on > which do and don't. > 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break. > 4) Dnsmasq inst

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-27 Thread Simon Kelley
On 25/09/2024 19:16, Jan Ceuleers wrote: On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote: Downsides to this proposed change. 1) Old versions of Windows might break. 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on which do and don't. 3) Other platforms which have made the same mi

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-27 Thread Geert Stappers
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 08:16:09PM +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote: > > Downsides to this proposed change. > > > > 1) Old versions of Windows might break. > > 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on > > which do and don't. > > 3) Oth

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-27 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 09:16:02AM +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > On 21/09/2024 09:29, Geert Stappers wrote: > > 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: > > > > > > . > > >

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-25 Thread Jan Ceuleers
On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote: > Downsides to this proposed change. > > 1) Old versions of Windows might break. > 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on > which do and don't. > 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break. > 4) Dnsmasq inst

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-25 Thread Wink Saville
Based on the analysis below it's not IMO it's not worth it. Also, the KB has been deleted by Microsoft. Here[1] is a link to an archived version of that article. [1]:https://mskb.pkisolutions.com/kb/281579 On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 02:31 Simon Kelley wrote: > Downsides to this proposed change. >

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-25 Thread Wink Saville
Sorry for the noise, but it should have been: Based on the analysis below, IMO it's not worth it. On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 04:13 Wink Saville wrote: > Based on the analysis below it's not > IMO it's not worth it. > > Also, the KB has been deleted by > Microsoft. Here[1] is a link to an archived >

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-25 Thread Simon Kelley
Downsides to this proposed change. 1) Old versions of Windows might break. 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on which do and don't. 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break. 4) Dnsmasq installations which unkowningly rely on this behaviour

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-22 Thread Jan Ceuleers
Hi Geert, Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I understand the full meaning of your comments; allow me to dig a little deeper. On 21/09/2024 09:29, Geert Stappers wrote: > 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

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

2024-09-21 Thread Geert Stappers
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