netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87zhmlctqz.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:52:52 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range

Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> writes:

> The longstanding prohibition against using 0.0.0.0/8 dates back
> to two issues with the early internet.
>
> There was an interoperability problem with BSD 4.2 in 1984, fixed in
> BSD 4.3 in 1986. BSD 4.2 has long since been retired. 
>
> Secondly, addresses of the form 0.x.y.z were initially defined only as
> a source address in an ICMP datagram, indicating "node number x.y.z on
> this IPv4 network", by nodes that know their address on their local
> network, but do not yet know their network prefix, in RFC0792 (page
> 19).  This usage of 0.x.y.z was later repealed in RFC1122 (section
> 3.2.2.7), because the original ICMP-based mechanism for learning the
> network prefix was unworkable on many networks such as Ethernet (which
> have longer addresses that would not fit into the 24 "node number"
> bits).  Modern networks use reverse ARP (RFC0903) or BOOTP (RFC0951)
> or DHCP (RFC2131) to find their full 32-bit address and CIDR netmask
> (and other parameters such as default gateways). 0.x.y.z has had
> 16,777,215 addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 space left unused and reserved for
> future use, since 1989.
>
> This patch allows for these 16m new IPv4 addresses to appear within
> a box or on the wire. Layer 2 switches don't care.
>
> 0.0.0.0/32 is still prohibited, of course.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>

Well, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow this.

Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>