North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: Paul Jakma
  • Date: Sun Jun 27 18:50:42 2004 
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 [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
Many receive advice, few profit by it.
-- Publilius Syrus