On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Good point, that's not really right either! On that basis, I propose that that bit of code be deleted, since it's not really RFC-compliant either. If someone really cares about compliance, they can re-patch it with a proper configuration switch. > 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 ..? Sounds reasonable. /a _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
