[PATCH] Babel: add RFC9229 (v4 via v6) support

[Bernd Naumann]

On 14.02.23 22:08, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:

> (There's also the PMTUD problem described in RFC 9229 Section 3.)


Hey,

Juliusz, do you, or any one else, have info on:
How does ${vendor} behave when reverse path filters are enabled?

I did some "research" aka an afternoon of web-search on that topic a
while ago, and I only found:
* Linux does just treat the whole 192.0.0.0/24 as "special" is is not
aware of the meaning of 192.0.0.8/32
* Cisco is not "aware" of it as well, as far as I could tell
* IIRC Juniper had no docu on that topic...

I see the point, that on the Internet it would do more harm then
anything else to allow/transport packets with this source address, but
on internal networks it could be useful.
However, it clashes as soon as you enable "strict" or even any RPF...
How do people treat this address in operational networks?

Thanks for any input.
Bernd