> On Mar 12, 2019, at 4:19 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We already made the 240/4 address range work in openwrt in december. > This patch adds in other formerly reserved address ranges: > > 1) > https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/blob/master/patches/linux/0001-Allow-0.0.0.0-8-and-reduce-localnet-and-enable-225-2.patch > > And it would be good to know if these addresses worked at all, on > wifi, and through nat. We hit a limit in the netifd daemon last time. > > (this is in relation to my moonshot talk at netdevconf. Which is > totally a moonshot)
Yes, this rfc and patch are off the deep end. :) Then again, I haven’t used the Mbone since ’95 on IRIX, so I for one am ok with killing that dead. Working on building my first OpenWRT image, ever. Does 32-bit mips do you much good? I guess I’ll just see what I can do with two boxes somewhere on 224.0.0.0/4... > 2) I hope we have the first SCE ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce-00 ) patchset > up fairly soon for fq_codel_fast (my out of tree mildly improved > fq_codel), and sch_cake. Maybe Freebsd also, if anyone here runs that. Looking forward to that patch (esp. Cake). > There's one other thing I'd like to test, if at all possible - that's > the new babel-hmac code. Likely too much for me to digest before the conference. _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
