Re: Support for 240/4 and 0/8 addresses in NetBSD

[Gert Doering <gert%greenie.muc.de@localhost>]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> I was thinking along the lines of: if a sysctl check (of some address
> validity) would get in the way of the fast path, then that particular
> check could be left the same. In the slow path (the failure case), it
> could then check the sysctl and possibly consider the address valid
> anyway.  With a scheme like this, the run time costs are only incurred
> if somebody actually uses the "new" addresses.

This sounds like a good way to spend lots of time debugging...

Personally, I think that this whole excercise is a waste of time
(because "on the wild Internet", 240.* has no chance to realiably
work *to all destinations*, due to too many old routers being somewhere
in the path) - but if you do it, then stop any special treatment,
and do not add new special code paths.

I do like the idea "make the kernel agnostic, and block it via
reject routes if the old behaviour is truly desired".

gert
-- 
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you 
 feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted 
 it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
                             Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert%greenie.muc.de@localhost