Ignoring bogus route 240.0.0.0/4

[Jonathan Stewart]

Though this space is "reserved for future addressing modes", I see no reason
> why it is "bogus", especially when routers perfectly accept them.
>

I'd say their behaviour is undefined--do routers just use them like unicast
addresses?

Reserved for future use is still the status according to IANA:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml


> Hardcoding anything that is not loopback is bad idea, IMHO.
>

There are lists and documents about special-purpose IPv4 addresses. In
fact, the IANA keeps a list of them:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

I'd say BIRD should generally follow RFCs and object to using addresses
contrary to their standard meaning.  Calling 240.0.0.0/4 "bogus" is too
strong. "Undefined" would be a better, and probably as a (strong) warning.

Cheers,



-- 
     Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20170919/353061d5/attachment.html>