Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:35:03 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r190758 - head/sbin/route Message-ID: <8ACFDA96-746E-49C9-B562-65DF82CD361B@lakerest.net> In-Reply-To: <49D9DBED.6050805@FreeBSD.org> References: <200904061009.n36A9K6l063517@svn.freebsd.org> <49D9DBED.6050805@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm. On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > Randall Stewart wrote: >> Author: rrs >> Date: Mon Apr 6 10:09:20 2009 >> New Revision: 190758 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190758 >> >> Log: >> Class based addressing went out in the early 90's. Basically >> if a entry is not route add -net xxx/bits then we should use >> the addr (xxx) to establish the number of bits by looking at >> the first non-zero bit. So if we enter >> route add -net 10.1.1.0 10.1.3.5 >> this is the same as doing >> route add -net 10.1.1.0/24 >> Since the 8th bit (zero counting) is set to 1 we set bits >> to 32-8. >> >> Users can of course still use the /x to change this behavior >> or in cases where the network is in the trailing part >> of the address, a "netmask" argument can be supplied to >> override what is established from the interpretation of the >> address itself. e.g: >> >> route add -net 10.1.1.8 -netmask 0xff00ffff >> >> should overide and place the proper CIDR mask in place. >> >> PR: 131365 >> MFC after: 1 week > > Are you sure that this is a good idea? Is this behavior > described/recommended somewhere? IMHO specifying network without > explicitly defined netmask is at least dangerous, if not wrong, in > present classless addressing time. Changing existing behavior breaks > POLA for some set of users, while benefits are not so obvious to me. > With previous code networks 10.0.0.0 and 11.0.0.0 were treated as /8, > but with this change it became /7 and /8 respectively. Well it is how CIDR works.. and cidr's been around since before 1997. I can go dig up the RFC's that specifu this if you woudl like > > > Author of the PR referred here expects network 192.168 to be treated > as > /16, but with your algorithm it will probably become /13. Drat... your right.. hmm. I need to go back and see how the old 6.0 stuff used to work properly.. R > > > -- > Alexander Motin > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell) 803-345-0391(direct)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8ACFDA96-746E-49C9-B562-65DF82CD361B>