Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[Howard Gibson via talk]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
"D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk"  wrote:

> | From: Stewart Russell via talk 
> 
> | This is not a place of honour:.
> | 
> | https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic
> 
> This doesn't have the Waterloo BASIC extensions to Commodore BASIC.
> Too bad.
> ---

   I still have a book on Comal lying around somewhere. 

   If you really need to program a C64, there is alway Vice...

   http://vice-emu.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Howard Gibson 
hgib...@eol.ca
jhowardgib...@gmail.com
http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[Chris F.A. Johnson via talk]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, Chris F.A. Johnson via talk wrote:


On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:


| From: Stewart Russell via talk 

| This is not a place of honour:.
| 
| https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic


This doesn't have the Waterloo BASIC extensions to Commodore BASIC.
Too bad.


  That was my first thought, too, although I used a clone of Waterloo
  BASIC that was available on a TPUG disc.


   It was Northcastle Structured BASIC, and here is the article I wrote
   on it for the TPUG Magazine:
   https://archive.org/details/tpug-newsletter-23/page/n21

--
   Chris F.A. Johnson 
   === Author: ===
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux shell (2009, Apress)
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[Chris F.A. Johnson via talk]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:


| From: Stewart Russell via talk 

| This is not a place of honour:.
| 
| https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic


This doesn't have the Waterloo BASIC extensions to Commodore BASIC.
Too bad.


  That was my first thought, too, although I used a clone of Waterloo
  BASIC that was available on a TPUG disc.

--
   Chris F.A. Johnson 
   === Author: ===
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
   Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux shell (2009, Apress)
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 02:31 PM, Christopher Browne via talk wrote:
> When one fellow in
> the class was enough of an entitled twit (has anyone ever gained anything
> from telling the class how high their IQ was???) his decks got
> occasionally
> defaced, or cards swapped. 

Way back when I was learning programming (8008 assembler) on a Datapoint
2200, I'd occasionally "accidentally" trip over the power cord for
someone else's terminal.  ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datapoint_2200
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[Christopher Browne via talk]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:33, James Knott via talk  wrote:

> On 2019-08-14 01:24 PM, Christopher Browne via talk wrote:
> > Oh, the good times of doing matrix calculations in Grade 12 "Computer
> > Science"...
>
> Back in my Gr 12 computer programming class, we learned Fortran and used
> pencil mark cards for our programs.  The teacher would then take our
> cards down to the board office, to compile them.  As long as they
> compiled, they were OK.  They could have been complete garbage programs,
> but as long as they compiled...  ;-)
>

We did something like that in Gr 11, only the mark cards produced some form
of mainframe-based BASIC code.  We put the decks into a box, similar
story...

It was somewhat sensitive to quality of pencil marks, and an insufficiently
darkened cell would turn out badly for the program :-(.  When one fellow in
the class was enough of an entitled twit (has anyone ever gained anything
from telling the class how high their IQ was???) his decks got occasionally
defaced, or cards swapped.
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

[GTALUG] Nvidia Backends

[xerofoify via talk]

Greetings,
For anyone on the list who is interested it seems that there is a
backend targeting or compiling for Nvidia cards for
programming in LLVM/GCC. Seems that its mainlined but CUDA is still
closed source.
https://llvm.org/docs/NVPTXUsage.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/OpenACC

Regards,
Nick
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Russell Reiter via talk]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 12:26 PM James Knott via talk  wrote:

> On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
> > As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are
> > overlooked by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to
> > to those comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of
> > joining the connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we
> > juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to
> > upgrade or lose service.
>
> Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here.
> They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have.  The
> same thing happened with cell phones.  There are many parts of the world
> where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service.
>

No question that the UN-wiring of the world has expanded individual social
and economic potential, by increaseing access to knowledge and
communications.

I remember one of the earliest electrical conservation motivators in Canada
was by the government giving an implied recycling credit to new purchasers
of energy star appliances. I believe you got a tax credit on a purchase and
the social credit for recycling. The manufactures were donating old energy
inefficient appliances to developing nations. In hindsight it appears that
the overall environmental costs would have been less, if the old devices
were just scrapped and energy star appliances donated instead.

I imagine the energy map of the day might bear striking similarity to this
map of adoption of ipv6 by country.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

Russia and China and perhaps others are creating segregated networks for
trusted endpoint to endpoint connections. However, I think that NAT and
other hacks will be around for a while yet.

>
> ---
> Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 01:24 PM, Christopher Browne via talk wrote:
> Oh, the good times of doing matrix calculations in Grade 12 "Computer
> Science"...

Back in my Gr 12 computer programming class, we learned Fortran and used
pencil mark cards for our programs.  The teacher would then take our
cards down to the board office, to compile them.  As long as they
compiled, they were OK.  They could have been complete garbage programs,
but as long as they compiled...  ;-)
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[Christopher Browne via talk]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:18, Stewart Russell via talk 
wrote:

> This is not a place of honour:.
>
> https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic
>
> Go do some damage!
>

My first assumption had been that this wouldn't have any access out into
the filesystem.

Oh, my, given that it does allow opening files, you could indeed do some
"real" tasks with this.  And do some real damage!

I don't want to think about looping through files, but it could reasonably
be used to process a file!

cbbrowne@cbbrowne2 ~/G/c/test> cat fileio.bas

   130 master?
10 OPEN 1,1,1,"TEST.DAT"
20 PRINT#1, 1234
30 PRINT#1, "Hello"
40 CLOSE 1

50 OPEN 2,1,0,"TEST.DAT"
60 INPUT#2, A
70 INPUT#2, I$
80 CLOSE 2

90 PRINT A
100 PRINT I$

The prime number sieve (which does not capture primes into an array, hence
never speeds up searches by avoiding dividing by non-primes) is
surprisingly fast, all given, finding the first 11302 primes in about 11
seconds.

I'm with Hugh on being disappointed not to have the Waterloo "structured
BASIC" extensions.

That said, I hated Structured BASIC at the time; it prevented me from
handing in assignments on tiny slips of paper, which inevitably led to the
teacher losing my assignment because the piece of paper fell out when he
was shuffling papers.  Oh, the good times of doing matrix calculations in
Grade 12 "Computer Science"...
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: James Knott via talk 

| On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:

| >  all that equipment we
| > juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to
| > upgrade or lose service.
| 
| Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here. 
| They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have.  The
| same thing happened with cell phones.  There are many parts of the world
| where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service.

As far as I know, pretty much all hardware made in the last 20 years
ought to be able to do IPv6.  Slightly more recently, pretty much all
software ought to handle IPv5.

I think that what doesn't support IPv6 is many people and deployments.
I'm an example.

The ISP that routes my /24 doesn't support IPv6.  Not sure why.  They
must think that none of their clients need or want it.

I could use IPv6 because I have a second ISP (Rogers) that does
support IPv6.  But it seems easier to leave things as they are.  So
I'm a typical cause of the problem.

This would change in a flash if some site I cared about was IPv6-only.
Say Google or Red Hat.---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
> As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are
> overlooked by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to
> to those comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of
> joining the connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we
> juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to
> upgrade or lose service.

Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here. 
They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have.  The
same thing happened with cell phones.  There are many parts of the world
where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service.

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Russell Reiter via talk]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 10:34 AM James Knott via talk, 
wrote:

> On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> > I don't know the reason for this.
>
> The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should
> be putting the effort into moving to IPv6.  IPv4 hasn't been adequate
> since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage.
> This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on
> hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.
>

Not to be trite here but "hacks upon hacks," I think that just about sums
up most operating systems built since Bell pulled support for MULTICS. It
was then that Ken Thompson developed his own file and paging systems to
fulfill his desire to write a Space Travel video game.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

Perhaps the hardest objective in any large scale change, is overcoming the
status quo. For most business's, the operational costs for personnel
training alone could be staggering.  Business is hard wired to defray and
defer costs. That is till necessity rears its head, then they will scream,
shout, scramble and hack.

I'm a operational manual reader, out of both interest and necessity, so I
came across this helpdesk manual for residential ISP's with tests for ipv6
use.

>
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-631

I think that parallel development, for the foreseeable future as the
current literature reflects, is the business watchword of the day.
Ostensibly this is to keep costs down to the minimum.

The last 18 months have posed significant hurdles for IT business's, as
more and more latent defects, or undocumented hashes if you prefer, have
come to light.

It is the nature of science to slowly and deliberately entertain new ideas
which challange the status quo of currently held beliefs. It is the nature
of business to do the same, albeit for different reasons.

Recognizing there is a problem is one thing, fixing systemic industry wide
issues is another thing. From the beginning ipv4 was a DARPA networking
test bed. Who knew at that time that personal home networks would become
the titanic engines of industry that they are today.

As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are overlooked
by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to to those
comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of joining the
connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we juat sold you a
few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to upgrade or lose service.

My 0.2c FWIW

>
> ---
> Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Alvin Starr via talk]

On 8/14/19 10:34 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:

I don't know the reason for this.

The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should
be putting the effort into moving to IPv6.  IPv4 hasn't been adequate
since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage.
This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on
hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.


To squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4 these addresses would need to be 
routable over the internet at large and I am not sure that will be easy 
to do.


As much as I might like to think linux development drives the internet 
companies insist on spending lots of money Cisco like gear and if Cisco 
won't route 0.0.0.0/8 then it just ain't going to happen.


--
Alvin Starr   ||   land:  (647)478-6285
Netvel Inc.   ||   Cell:  (416)806-0133
al...@netvel.net  ||

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> I don't know the reason for this.

The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should
be putting the effort into moving to IPv6.  IPv4 hasn't been adequate
since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage. 
This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on
hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: James Knott via talk 

| 
https://www.technotification.com/2019/08/linux-kernel-allows-0-0-0-0-8-as-a-valid-address-range.html

I don't know the reason for this.  I'm too lazy to look right now.
But I do trust the proponents that were listed.  Not that I always
agree with them but their motives are generally good.

Dave Taht: main developer of versions of OpenWRT dealing with
"bufferbloat".

Gohn Gilmore: (among other things) co-founder of EFF and founder of
FreeS/WAN project (I was part of that project).

Paul Wouters: Torontonian; head of Libreswan project (I'm part of that
project).
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 10:07 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
> I tried running up an IPV6 tunnel to Hurricane a few years back before
> being on TSI and it borked my firewall/router.

All you need is a router that supports DHCPv6-PD.

> And for whatever reason it seems that all my clients fit into the
> category of  "you will have to pry my IPV4 addresses from my cold dead
> hands".

That's the heart of the problem.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Alvin Starr via talk]

On 8/14/19 9:56 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2019-08-14 09:43 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:

I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make
bags of cash here.

I see you're on Teksavvy.  Are you aware they have IPv6?  They've had it
for years on ADSL, which is how you connect.  They also started
providing it over cable last year.  Your email came from an IPv4 address.


I am lazy.

I have a bunch of infrastructure that I have and have to support in IPV4 
and moving part of it to V6 will involve work on my part.


I tried running up an IPV6 tunnel to Hurricane a few years back before 
being on TSI and it borked my firewall/router.


And for whatever reason it seems that all my clients fit into the 
category of  "you will have to pry my IPV4 addresses from my cold dead 
hands".


--
Alvin Starr   ||   land:  (647)478-6285
Netvel Inc.   ||   Cell:  (416)806-0133
al...@netvel.net  ||

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] For Chris: Commodore BASIC as a scripting language

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: Stewart Russell via talk 

| This is not a place of honour:.
| 
| https://github.com/mist64/cbmbasic

This doesn't have the Waterloo BASIC extensions to Commodore BASIC.
Too bad.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 09:43 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
> I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make
> bags of cash here.

I see you're on Teksavvy.  Are you aware they have IPv6?  They've had it
for years on ADSL, which is how you connect.  They also started
providing it over cable last year.  Your email came from an IPv4 address.

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Alvin Starr via talk]

On 8/14/19 9:15 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2019-08-14 09:01 AM, Giles Orr wrote:

Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of
cash to those who aren't letting IPv4 drop.  That economic interest
will be enough to push it through against almost any resistance.

There are now restrictions on handing out IPv4 address blocks, including
showing need, etc..  So, there's not a lot of room for making money from
this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion


I am not sure how much ARIN and IANA will end up making from this.
They are also big boosters of IPV6

But first the block would need to be moved from its special status and I 
have a feeling that that would take a long time.

The latest whois still has it as special.

You could also lump 127.0.0.0/8 into the same category of places to find 
new ipv4 addresses.
Aside from providing more space for internal networks like 10.0.0.0/8 I 
can't see this becoming useful to anybody in the short term.
All the routers in the internet would need to be willing to accept the 
0.0.0.0/8 network and that could end up meaning software upgrades for 
lots of routers.


I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make 
bags of cash here.



#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/tou/
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/inaccuracy_reporting/
#
# Copyright 1997-2019, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.
#


NetRange:   0.0.0.0 - 0.255.255.255
CIDR:   0.0.0.0/8
NetName:    SPECIAL-IPV4-LOCAL-ID-IANA-RESERVED
NetHandle:  NET-0-0-0-0-1
Parent:  ()
NetType:    IANA Special Use
OriginAS:
Organization:   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
RegDate:
Updated:    2013-08-30
Comment:    The address 0.0.0.0 may only be used as the address of 
an outgoing packet when a computer is learning which IP address it 
should use.  It is never used as a destination address. Addresses 
starting with "0." are sometimes used for broadcasts to directly 
connected devices.

Comment:
Comment:    If you see addresses starting with a "0." in logs they 
are probably in use on your network, which might be as small as a 
computer connected to a home gateway.

Comment:
Comment:    This block was assigned by the IETF, the organization 
that develops Internet protocols, in the Standard document, RFC 1122, 
and is further documented in the Best Current Practice document RFC 
6890.  IANA is listed as the registrant to make it clear that this 
network is not assigned to any single organization.

Comment:
Comment:    These documents can be found at:
Comment:    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1122
Comment:    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6890
Ref:    https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/0.0.0.0



OrgName:    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgId:  IANA
Address:    12025 Waterfront Drive
Address:    Suite 300
City:   Los Angeles
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 90292
Country:    US
RegDate:
Updated:    2012-08-31
Ref:    https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/IANA



--
Alvin Starr   ||   land:  (647)478-6285
Netvel Inc.   ||   Cell:  (416)806-0133
al...@netvel.net  ||

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[James Knott via talk]

On 2019-08-14 09:01 AM, Giles Orr wrote:
> Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of
> cash to those who aren't letting IPv4 drop.  That economic interest
> will be enough to push it through against almost any resistance.

There are now restrictions on handing out IPv4 address blocks, including
showing need, etc..  So, there's not a lot of room for making money from
this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range

[Giles Orr via talk]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 17:23, James Knott via talk  wrote:

> IPv6 has been around for years.  Why don't some people get with the
> program, instead of coming up with hacks to get around the address
> shortage.  Even with this block, there still won't be enough IPv4
> addresses just for mobile devices, let alone everything else.  The
> longer people take to move to IPv6, the worse the problem is going to
> get.  By comparison, on IPv6, the smallest address block, /64 provides
> as many addresses as the entire IPv4 address space squared.  I get 256
> of those /64s from my ISP.  Some ISPs provide 65K of them to each
> customer.  Why are we wasting our time trying to squeeze more life out
> of something that should have been retired years ago?  Incidentally,
> this block represents less than 0.4% of the IPv4 address space.  Will it
> really make a difference?
>
>
> https://www.technotification.com/2019/08/linux-kernel-allows-0-0-0-0-8-as-a-valid-address-range.html
>

Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of cash to
those who aren't letting IPv4 drop.  That economic interest will be enough
to push it through against almost any resistance.

-- 
Giles
https://www.gilesorr.com/
giles...@gmail.com
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk