[Bug 235927] FreeBSD does not reply to ICMP requests when assigned an ip in 240.0.0.0/8

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235927

Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dave.taht at gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Rodney W. Grimes from comment #7)

To clarify a few things... 

The last major attempt at making 240/4 "real" happened in the 2008-2010
timeframe - bsd and linux gained the ability to assign and route it around then
(and osx had it in the first place). The IETF conflated "making it work" with
"how they should be used" and after the CGN address space was defined support
died out there. There was consensus then about making them unicast, I think,
from talking to all the participants in the debate.

Linux had one teeny patch dropped on the floor back then which allowed
assignment from the ifconfig sysctl still used by busybox (otherwise the
netlink based tools like iproute had no restrictions), so it had otherwise been
able to assign/route/ping for all this time. So we just fixed that (and
obsoleted IN_EXPERIMENTAL entirely) in linux 4.20 and backported it to openwrt.
There's other patches outstanding across other tools in the ipv4-cleanup github
repo.

So... the minor bug regarding using this space on freebsd was this single line
check for icmp, and I don't think removing that needs a sysctl or ifdef.
assignment and routing already work. 

I agree that after kernel support lands that the next bigger barriers are
firewalls, bcp38, and other devices on the path... and the ietf. Knocking out
the ping issue is just one small step along the way.

Lastly, it's far from a lone dev at pushing this stuff forward again, however
we totally don't mind just accumulating more patches in our repo until more
visibility and consensus is achieved. That said... one line patch...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.