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:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
> > > >Also, does Fred check for reserved address ranges? It seems this would
> > > >be able to rule out most publicly inaccessible interfaces.
> > > That I know it does :)
> > 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.
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030528/dd31e5b1/attachment.pgp>
