James Carlson wrote: >Sangeeta Misra writes: > > >>James Carlson wrote: >> >> >>>You can't plumb it, and still won't be able to once this project >>>integrates. It's outside the scope. (Perhaps, for completeness, the >>>IN_CLASSE macro ought to exclude it explicitly. That sounds like a >>>code review issue, though.) >>> >>> >>CLASSE macro does exclude 255.255.255.255.in my code changes. >> >> > >It's not part of the definition of Class E space, though, is it? > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fuller-240space-00.txt
says the Class E range is : range 240.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.255 But it goes on to say: 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. So there is a slight contradiction in the draft, but the note about broadcast address makes it clear that 255.255.255.255 should not be considered to be a valid address to assign to a machine. So I simply exclude it from my IN_CLASSE macro. Sangeeta
