On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Alexis Rosen wrote:
On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Alexis Rosen wrote:
This makes sense to me, and the RFC doesn't.
Where's the RFC wrong exactly? "subnet 0" - 0/1 can't be that, as 0/1
means you can not look at the full addr?
On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Michael H Lambert <[email protected]> wrote:
This use case makes sense to me. However, quoting RFC 2453, "The
special address 0.0.0.0 is used to describe a default route." It
makes no reference to an associated netmask.
So, to answer your question, I think 2453 should be amended to say
that only 0.0.0.0/0 is the default.
The problem is, there may be a ton of gear and code out there like
quagga that ignores the mask on 0.0.0.0.
Well, it's clearing the netmask, when the s_addr is 0. That's not in the
RFC either. Re-announced route will have it 0 then I assume.
Is there anywhere that would break if we stopped clearing the netmask?
Seems unlikely that anyone would be distributing 0/x, 0 < x <= 8 routes
yet expecting it to be a default - anyone trying that is probably like
Jim, wishing that bug wasn't there? ;)
Risks seem very slim, or ..?
If so, to preserve interoperability, the amendment would have to say
something like "By default, you MUST treat 0.0.0.0 as the default
route, regardless of subnet mask. However, you MAY have an option to
treat 0.0.0.0 with a non-zero netmask as a route other than the
default."
Ack.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
Memory should be the starting point of the present.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
