On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 09:16:02AM +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > On 21/09/2024 09:29, Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 07:22:35PM +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > > > Dear dnsmasq community, > > > > > > The changelog for version 2.47 contains the following: > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > 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. > > > > [1][4] > > > > > > It is OK to wonder, it is better to go beyond wondering. Either accept > > what has been observed, or dive deeper into it. > > > > And it is OK to render the special treatment of address ending in .0 or > > .255 in /23 networks or even larger networks as "to be retired". Then > > the adventure realy begins. Dive in the source, find the place (find the > > placesss???) where the exception is implented and remove it. `make` and > > test it. Most likely it will take several iterations (don't expect > > "first time right"). The "it works for me" reward can get as next > > reward the warm feeling of "I was able to give back" [2]. > > > > > > > Many thanks, Jan > > > > You are welcome [3] > > > > > > Groeten > > Geert Stappers > > > > > > [1] I could not resist to ignore the posting, > > hence te long "the posting has been seen". > > [2] I'm hinting on a patch. > > [3] Feel free to come with follow-up-questions. > > [4] It doesn't matter when Class C address ranges were retired. > > I'm not sure whether you are confirming my belief that it is time to > retire this special treatment; would you mind being more explicit? The missed message is "the posting has been seen", it was sent after three days of silence.
> It is of course normal for an open-source project to request patches. > But before we get to that, I was enquiring as to whether any such patch > would be accepted. In other words: is anyone on this list aware of > reasons why it should not: are there still IP implementations out there > and in significant use that cannot cope with .0 or .255 addresses in > networks larger than /24 that formerly belonged to Class C? > > Then, as regards a potential patch: it would consist of a reversion of > the commit that introduced the restriction to begin with. I do like that idea. > $ git log -S 'Addresses which end in .255 and .0 are broken in Windows > even when using' > commit 73a08a248d45ca4ed6e5454a174d7248fdbeb17d (tag: v2.47) > Author: Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> > Date: Thu Feb 5 20:28:08 2009 +0000 > > import of dnsmasq-2.47.tar.gz > The output of git log --patch 73a08a248^1...73a08a248 is large. > Is earlier commit-by-commit history still available somewhere? I don't know. And if it is, would the next question: In which format? It was good to see that "Is earlier commit-by-commit history available?" did not block writing a patch. (Yes, that is a compliment.) Groeten Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
