On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:59:54PM +0300, Erno Kuusela wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > | On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:24:35PM +0100, Toad wrote: > || On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 11:45:02AM +0200, Frank v Waveren wrote: > || > Not all of them apparantly, 5.0.0.0/8 is marked IANA RESERVED. > > || We check for local and LAN-only addresses currently. One might make an > || argument for checking for "reserved" addresses, and multicast-reserved > || addresses, but what we have now is normally sufficient. > > | Clearly not. It makes no sense *not* to reject all reserved ranges, as > | this would easily solve the problem of locally attached IP devices using > | them, as in Nick's case. > > you don't know if it's reserved now, unless you ask iana in real > time. iana will in all likelihood allocate out of 5.0.0.0/8 sooner or > later, in contrast to rfc1918 addresses. the phone hijacking > unassigned address space seems broken. but the computer probably > doesn't have the default route going there given that then everything > would break. so why not just use the default route, like it was > before? i can't see how you could hope to do better outguessing it...
Because that doesn't work on most platforms, and because doing it properly allows us to support multihoming in node references (although we don't actually do that yet). > > -- erno -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ GPG key lost in last few weeks, new key on keyservers ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible in him whom we trust
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
