[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 16 year old bug
>> Fix a 16 year old bug in the sorting routine for non-contiguous netmasks.
> Does our IPSEC code actually _use_ non-continguous netmasks?
I haven't looked at the IPsec code, so this is a guess, but the wording
makes it sound as though this is an implementation technique used
internally by IPsec rather than being the externally-visible use of
noncontiguous netmasks everyone seems to be taking it for.
> and most modern network hardware will turn their nose up at them
IMO anything that pretends to implement IPv4 but which doesn't do
noncontiguous netasks is simply broken, I don't care whether it comes
from Cisco or Netgear or NetBSD.
Not, I suppose, that anyone necessarily cares what I consider broken.
Slow-path them. Require a sysctl switch (the way we do for source
routes). Fine. But outright desupport them? I'd call that a bug,
even if it is done deliberately.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |