[Dnsmasq-discuss] Specific treatment of Class C addresses

[Jan Ceuleers]

Hi Geert,

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I understand the full meaning of
your comments; allow me to dig a little deeper.

On 21/09/2024 09:29, Geert Stappers wrote:
> And it is OK to render the special treatment of address ending in .0 or
> .255 in /23 networks or even larger networks as "to be retired". Then
> the adventure realy begins. Dive in the source, find the place (find the
> placesss???) where the exception is implented and remove it. `make` and
> test it. Most likely it will take several iterations (don't expect
> "first time right"). The "it works for me" reward can get as next
> reward the warm feeling of "I was able to give back" [2].

I'm not sure whether you are confirming my belief that it is time to
retire this special treatment; would you mind being more explicit?

It is of course normal for an open-source project to request patches.
But before we get to that, I was enquiring as to whether any such patch
would be accepted. In other words: is anyone on this list aware of
reasons why it should not: are there still IP implementations out there
and in significant use that cannot cope with .0 or .255 addresses in
networks larger than /24 that formerly belonged to Class C?

Then, as regards a potential patch: it would consist of a reversion of
the commit that introduced the restriction to begin with.

$ git log -S 'Addresses which end in .255 and .0 are broken in Windows
even when using'
commit 73a08a248d45ca4ed6e5454a174d7248fdbeb17d (tag: v2.47)
Author: Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>
Date:   Thu Feb 5 20:28:08 2009 +0000

    import of dnsmasq-2.47.tar.gz

So this commit predates Simon's adoption of git. Is earlier
commit-by-commit history still available somewhere?

Thanks, Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20240922/e85ae6ef/attachment.htm>