netdev - Re: route: an issue caused by local and main table's merge

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

Message-ID: <20200310155630.GA7102@pc-3.home>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:56:30 +0100
From:   Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>, mmhatre@...hat.com,
        "alexander.h.duyck@...el.com" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: route: an issue caused by local and main table's merge

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:53:53AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Also, is it really a valid configuration to have the same address
> configured as both a broadcast and unicast address? I couldn't find
> anything that said it wasn't, but at the same time I haven't found
> anything saying it is an acceptable practice to configure an IP
> address as both a broadcast and unicast destination. Everything I saw
> seemed to imply that a subnet should be at least a /30 to guarantee a
> pair of IPs and support for broadcast addresses with all 1's and 0 for
> the host identifier. As such 192.168.122.1 would never really be a
> valid broadcast address since it implies a /31 subnet mask.
> 
RFC 3031 explicitly allows /31 subnets for point to point links. Also,
I've seen such network configurations in production on Linux boxes.