Sorry for the noise, but it should have been: Based on the analysis below, IMO it's not worth it.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 04:13 Wink Saville <w...@saville.com> wrote: > Based on the analysis below it's not > IMO it's not worth it. > > Also, the KB has been deleted by > Microsoft. Here[1] is a link to an archived > version of that article. > > > [1]:https://mskb.pkisolutions.com/kb/281579 > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 02:31 Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: > >> Downsides to this proposed change. >> >> 1) Old versions of Windows might break. >> 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on >> which do and don't. >> 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break. >> 4) Dnsmasq installations which unkowningly rely on this behaviour in >> other respects might break. >> >> Upsides to the proposed change. >> 1) ~1% more available addresses in DHCP pools. >> 2) A small amount of code which no longer needs maintenance. >> >> It's not clear to me what the balance is here. Opinions, list? >> >> Simon. >> >> >> >> >> On 18/09/2024 18:22, Jan Ceuleers wrote: >> > Dear dnsmasq community, >> > >> > The changelog for version 2.47 contains the following: >> > >> > Don't dynamically allocate DHCP addresses which may break >> > Windows. Addresses which end in .255 or .0 are broken in >> > Windows even when using supernetting. >> > --dhcp-range=192.168.0.1,192.168.1.254,255,255,254.0 means >> > 192.168.0.255 is a valid IP address, but not for Windows. >> > See Microsoft KB281579. We therefore no longer allocate >> > these addresses to avoid hard-to-diagnose problems. >> > >> > Unless I'm mistaken the listed Microsoft KB applies only to Windows >> versions that are long since past end of support. Furthermore, CIDR was >> introduced by the IETF more than 30 years ago. >> > >> > I was therefore wondering whether it is time to retire the special >> treatment of addresses ending in .0 or .255 in Class C address ranges. >> > >> > Many thanks, Jan >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >> > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk >> > >> https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk >> https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >> >>
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
