Darren Reed wrote: > Sangeeta Misra wrote: > >> Darren Reed wrote: >> >>> How will the configuration of class E addresses be handled by routed? >>> >> >> RIPV1 wont be able to handle Class E , but RIPv2 should ( in.routed >> has both version) I will be filing a seperate RFE for Quagga to handle >> Class E. > > > So this means in.routed will be modified to only announce configured > class E networks using RIPv2? >
Yes. Solaris in.routed code should be changed so that - it considers a packet with a source address( or destination address) of Class E space to be valid. - considers a Class E address as a interface address to be valid. Note that 255.255.255.255 is still invalid in this context ( see below) > >>> The relevant document from the IETF appears to be: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-01.txt >>> >>> Can this draft please be included in the materials for this case? >>> >>> Eventually there will be an RFC for this but since we can't yet >>> cite an RFC# (and drafts do expire), it would be good to include >>> the relevant specification as it exists at this point in time. >>> >> OK. >> >>> One issue with the specification is that it lists class E as extending >>> from 240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255. 255.255.255.255 is today >>> used as all-ones broadcast address. >> >> >> I see the range to be 240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.254 > > > This seems to be in contrast with what the Internet draft above says, in > that > the class E space being made available for private use is 240.0.0.0/4 (or > 240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255.) > > If I do "ifconfig ce0 240.0.2.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 up" happens, how will > the system respond to ping packets addressed to 255.255.255.255 on > other network interfaces? I will assume that you mean to say this: "ifconfig ce0 240.0.2.1 netmask 240.0.0.0 up" here ( then 255.255.255.255 becomes a valid network address for that subnet) Note draft-fuller-240space-00.txt states: ---------- Note that the broadcast address, 255.255.255.255, still must be treated specially in each case: it is illegal as a source IP address, it is illegal as an network interface address, and it matches the local system when used as the destination address in a received datagram. ------------- Given that, I dont think that 255.255.255.255 should be considered to be a valid Class E address. Also I assume IP reserves the entire range of addresses from 255.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.255 for broadcast, and this range should not be considered part of the normal Class E range. In searching the web I find that the range of valid Class E address varies- Cisco docs state the range to be 240.0.0.0 - 254.255.255.255, but others specify it as 240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.254. Reference http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/3.html#ustand_ip_add http://support.imagestream.com/Networking_Basics.html > With the other inet_* functions being announced as obsolete, should we > be thinking about doing the same for inet_addr() (255.255.255.255 will > be a valid address after this) ? > See above ( I dont think we should consider 255.255.255.255 to be a valid Class E address) Sangeeta
