* [net-next 0/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range @ 2019-06-22 17:07 Dave Taht 2019-06-22 17:07 ` [PATCH net-next 1/1] " Dave Taht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2019-06-22 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev; +Cc: Dave Taht My talk's slides and video at netdev 0x13 about "Potential IPv4 Unicast expansions" is up, here: https://netdevconf.org/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions There are roughly 419 million IPv4 addresses that are unallocated and unused in the 0, localhost, reserved future multicast, and 240/4 spaces. Linux already supports 240/4 fully. SDN's such as AWS already support the entire IPv4 address space as a unicast playground. This first patch for 0/8 was intended primarily as a conversation starter - arguably we should rename the function across 22 fairly "hot" files - but: Should Linux treat these ranges as policy, and no longer enforce via mechanism? A full patchset for adding 225-232, and 127 address spaces is on github: https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions with the very few needed patches for routing daemons and BSD also available there. Dave Taht (1): Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range include/linux/in.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH net-next 1/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range 2019-06-22 17:07 [net-next 0/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range Dave Taht @ 2019-06-22 17:07 ` Dave Taht 2019-06-26 20:20 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2019-06-22 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev; +Cc: Dave Taht, John Gilmore The longstanding prohibition against using 0.0.0.0/8 dates back to two issues with the early internet. There was an interoperability problem with BSD 4.2 in 1984, fixed in BSD 4.3 in 1986. BSD 4.2 has long since been retired. Secondly, addresses of the form 0.x.y.z were initially defined only as a source address in an ICMP datagram, indicating "node number x.y.z on this IPv4 network", by nodes that know their address on their local network, but do not yet know their network prefix, in RFC0792 (page 19). This usage of 0.x.y.z was later repealed in RFC1122 (section 3.2.2.7), because the original ICMP-based mechanism for learning the network prefix was unworkable on many networks such as Ethernet (which have longer addresses that would not fit into the 24 "node number" bits). Modern networks use reverse ARP (RFC0903) or BOOTP (RFC0951) or DHCP (RFC2131) to find their full 32-bit address and CIDR netmask (and other parameters such as default gateways). 0.x.y.z has had 16,777,215 addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 space left unused and reserved for future use, since 1989. This patch allows for these 16m new IPv4 addresses to appear within a box or on the wire. Layer 2 switches don't care. 0.0.0.0/32 is still prohibited, of course. Signed-off-by: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> --- include/linux/in.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/in.h b/include/linux/in.h index 4d2fedfb753a..1873ef642605 100644 --- a/include/linux/in.h +++ b/include/linux/in.h @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static inline bool ipv4_is_all_snoopers(__be32 addr) static inline bool ipv4_is_zeronet(__be32 addr) { - return (addr & htonl(0xff000000)) == htonl(0x00000000); + return (addr == 0); } /* Special-Use IPv4 Addresses (RFC3330) */ -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range 2019-06-22 17:07 ` [PATCH net-next 1/1] " Dave Taht @ 2019-06-26 20:20 ` David Miller 2019-07-14 3:57 ` Paul Marks 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2019-06-26 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dave.taht; +Cc: netdev, gnu From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 10:07:34 -0700 > The longstanding prohibition against using 0.0.0.0/8 dates back > to two issues with the early internet. > > There was an interoperability problem with BSD 4.2 in 1984, fixed in > BSD 4.3 in 1986. BSD 4.2 has long since been retired. > > Secondly, addresses of the form 0.x.y.z were initially defined only as > a source address in an ICMP datagram, indicating "node number x.y.z on > this IPv4 network", by nodes that know their address on their local > network, but do not yet know their network prefix, in RFC0792 (page > 19). This usage of 0.x.y.z was later repealed in RFC1122 (section > 3.2.2.7), because the original ICMP-based mechanism for learning the > network prefix was unworkable on many networks such as Ethernet (which > have longer addresses that would not fit into the 24 "node number" > bits). Modern networks use reverse ARP (RFC0903) or BOOTP (RFC0951) > or DHCP (RFC2131) to find their full 32-bit address and CIDR netmask > (and other parameters such as default gateways). 0.x.y.z has had > 16,777,215 addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 space left unused and reserved for > future use, since 1989. > > This patch allows for these 16m new IPv4 addresses to appear within > a box or on the wire. Layer 2 switches don't care. > > 0.0.0.0/32 is still prohibited, of course. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> > Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> Applied, thanks for following up on this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range 2019-06-26 20:20 ` David Miller @ 2019-07-14 3:57 ` Paul Marks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Paul Marks @ 2019-07-14 3:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller; +Cc: dave.taht, netdev, gnu On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:20 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 10:07:34 -0700 > > > The longstanding prohibition against using 0.0.0.0/8 dates back > > to two issues with the early internet. > > > > There was an interoperability problem with BSD 4.2 in 1984, fixed in > > BSD 4.3 in 1986. BSD 4.2 has long since been retired. > > > > Secondly, addresses of the form 0.x.y.z were initially defined only as > > a source address in an ICMP datagram, indicating "node number x.y.z on > > this IPv4 network", by nodes that know their address on their local > > network, but do not yet know their network prefix, in RFC0792 (page > > 19). This usage of 0.x.y.z was later repealed in RFC1122 (section > > 3.2.2.7), because the original ICMP-based mechanism for learning the > > network prefix was unworkable on many networks such as Ethernet (which > > have longer addresses that would not fit into the 24 "node number" > > bits). Modern networks use reverse ARP (RFC0903) or BOOTP (RFC0951) > > or DHCP (RFC2131) to find their full 32-bit address and CIDR netmask > > (and other parameters such as default gateways). 0.x.y.z has had > > 16,777,215 addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 space left unused and reserved for > > future use, since 1989. > > > > This patch allows for these 16m new IPv4 addresses to appear within > > a box or on the wire. Layer 2 switches don't care. > > > > 0.0.0.0/32 is still prohibited, of course. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> > > Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> > > Applied, thanks for following up on this. This breaks an undocumented feature of Linux: $ telnet 0.0.0.1 22 Trying 0.0.0.1... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Invalid argument It's sometimes useful to put 0.x.x.x in command-line flags, /etc/hosts, or other config files, because it forces connect() to fail immediately, instead of sending packets and waiting for a timeout. Given that this has been user-visible for decades, is it a good idea to pull out the rug? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-07-14 3:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-06-22 17:07 [net-next 0/1] Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range Dave Taht 2019-06-22 17:07 ` [PATCH net-next 1/1] " Dave Taht 2019-06-26 20:20 ` David Miller 2019-07-14 3:57 ` Paul Marks
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).