5 ms·

Unfortunately IANA disagrees, it says it is still reserved: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml https:/

Unfortunately IANA disagrees, it says it is still reserved: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/... "0.0.0.0/8 "This host on this network" [RFC1122], Section 3.2.1.3 1981-09 N/A True False False False True" The referenced RFC is the same one as in the commit message but different section 3.2.1.3 vs 3.2.2.7. Shouldn't IANA have lifted (or indicated its intention to lift) the reservation before the kernel change?

azernik 7y ago
Given the seniority of the author and committer in the networking world, I assume that they're operating under the knowledge that IANA's reservation is being reconsidered.
- dtaht 7y ago
  We have had many talks at many levels over the years. This is an attempt to break the logjam of finger pointing that ensued. We expect wide adoption of this and other ipv4 related patches over the next few years across the open source stacks... and then a standards dialog can take place. John Gilmore (creator of the unicast extensions project) was the co-inventor of bootp in 85, which is what made using 0.0.0.0/8 feasible, then. The fact that it's been feasible since and no movement in the standards orgs to fix it, has kind of been a record long wait from bug fix to deployment in both our cases.
floatingatoll 7y ago
It’s reserved as a source, not as a destination, based on the table linked there anyways. Which implies some interesting things that aren’t as simple as “0/8 is reserved”.
- JoeSamoa 7y ago
  Interesting in what way?
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    For example: A load balancer can serve requests on a 0/8 IP address to the general public without violating the terms of the reservation, as the LB can simply direct responses over an interface other than the 0/8 listening-only interface with a cooperative router upstream. I’m not saying that this is true as written, but I’m saying that this is a plausible example in support of why I think it’s “interesting”.

azernik 7y ago

Given the seniority of the author and committer in the networking world, I assume that they're operating under the knowledge that IANA's reservation is being reconsidered.

dtaht 7y ago
We have had many talks at many levels over the years. This is an attempt to break the logjam of finger pointing that ensued. We expect wide adoption of this and other ipv4 related patches over the next few years across the open source stacks... and then a standards dialog can take place. John Gilmore (creator of the unicast extensions project) was the co-inventor of bootp in 85, which is what made using 0.0.0.0/8 feasible, then. The fact that it's been feasible since and no movement in the standards orgs to fix it, has kind of been a record long wait from bug fix to deployment in both our cases.

floatingatoll 7y ago

It’s reserved as a source, not as a destination, based on the table linked there anyways. Which implies some interesting things that aren’t as simple as “0/8 is reserved”.

JoeSamoa 7y ago
Interesting in what way?
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  For example: A load balancer can serve requests on a 0/8 IP address to the general public without violating the terms of the reservation, as the LB can simply direct responses over an interface other than the 0/8 listening-only interface with a cooperative router upstream. I’m not saying that this is true as written, but I’m saying that this is a plausible example in support of why I think it’s “interesting”.