Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:10:39 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 235927] FreeBSD does not reply to ICMP requests when assigned an ip in 240.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <bug-235927-7501-uvQh9MpIMD@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-235927-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-235927-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D235927 --- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Dave Taht from comment #9) > (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #2) > >If they're non-canonical, we should *not* allow them to be assigned to i= nterfaces. >=20 > -1 Help me understand the disagreement :-). I guess I should clarify =E2=80= =94 in the absence of one or more enabled sysctl(s) permitting use of reserved address space, my conclusion is that we shouldn't allow reserved IP ranges to be assigned/routed. Especially when we do not support them in other parts of = the stack which will silently fail (ICMP, ipfw, forwarding; maybe others). Maybe my suggestion is overstepping the intentions of the IPv4 RFC; it has = been a long time since I looked at it, and class E wasn't my focus at the time. Any way, if you want to elaborate on that, I'd love to learn more. Thank y= ou. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-235927-7501-uvQh9MpIMD>