From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 173863BA8E for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 857B6B0; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:26:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1540139176; bh=YD4CMvIZ0Q3Zb3arKccC0pCt06UzbTHB5xwQjceTchQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DRKLVunxc/d8iBNJsA7EtouvT9pUJ/QKHFSDsWe2H8R1zJvDQVYhaelXV0pnpVbDM gxD62P/K3cnds6FnMwYUZjNPEF6JbM19oB7Q39sWH+3u4R8zUeo34o9arOp6pTxO0/ tEVmPmK5Bz9Fwc/cF743YqecElkxu7NbOvtvkesM= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F20BAF; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:26:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: David Lang cc: cerowrt-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Wicked OT: 240.0.0.0/4 netblock X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 16:26:18 -0000 On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> Most host stacks do not handle 240/4 correctly. Getting this working >> outside of a very closed and controlled network is not feasible. >> >> You would need to validate all devices to support this 240/4 block that >> most IP stacks today will not use. > > I think starting down this road with the idea of making it like the 10/8 > block would still be a win. I've seen enough companies running into grief > with allocation issues in the 10/8 block that the idea of having an > additional /4 block available, even if only Linux and routers supported it > would be very useful. (especially with container heavy environments) As long as you validate everything that is being connected in there and it never leaks outside (remember, that is hard, for example look at MS leaking their internal IPs in email headers), you can do whatever you want. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se