12 ms·
The Busybox DHCP server had a special case where it wouldn't ever give out a .0 address, and I submitted a patch to remove that. I didn't even think about the p
by schoen 3y ago
The Busybox DHCP server had a special case where it wouldn't ever give out a .0 address, and I submitted a patch to remove that. I didn't even think about the possibility that someone might intentionally want that (to work around misbehavior of other devices). I don't think the person who added it was thinking that way, but I might be wrong.
The behavior of arbitrarily rejecting .0 has gotten a lot rarer in the wild lately. (I can confirm that because I've done a whole bunch of connectivity tests to .0 addresses, including using RIPE Atlas.)
- ogurechny 3y agoIt was probably added during the development of firmware for some cheap switch whose hardware did some unrecoverable nonsense when seeing such addresses in packets.
- mlyle 3y agoIn addition to various problems with UI/validation... a whole lot of networks/devices filtered 0.0.0.0 netmask 0.0.0.255 when ICMP amplification attacks were such a thing (and before we had better mitigations).
- toast0 3y agoNot likely a cheap switch. Cheap switches don't even look at IP; they just do ethernet and that's enough. More likely to be a slightly fancy switch, or terrible CPE for DSL/Cable.