Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.

[Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie>]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> If you want to have some real fun, try configuring some class E 
> addresses. Windows of course won't have it, and Cisco also doesn't 
> want anything to do with it, even to the point of rejecting routes 
> within 240.0.0.0/4 when they come in over BGP. (Which an MacOSX box 
> running Zebra will happily provide.)

Class D you mean surely?

Note that while GNU Zebra might be configurable to provide such 
updates, it too rejects such updates if received on unicast IPv4 
address family sessions bgp_route.c::bgp_nlri_parse():

      /* Check address. */
      if (packet->afi == AFI_IP && packet->safi == SAFI_UNICAST)
        {
          if (IN_CLASSD (ntohl (p.u.prefix4.s_addr)))
            {
              zlog (peer->log, LOG_ERR,
                    "IPv4 unicast NLRI is multicast address %s",
                    inet_ntoa (p.u.prefix4));
              bgp_notify_send (peer,
                               BGP_NOTIFY_UPDATE_ERR,
                               BGP_NOTIFY_UPDATE_INVAL_NETWORK);
              return -1;
            }
        }

and has done since GNU Zebra 0.91.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma      paul () clubi ie        paul () jakma org       Key ID: 64A2FF6A
        warning: do not ever send email to spam () dishone st
Fortune:
Many receive advice, few profit by it.
                -- Publilius Syrus