There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with a header that defines ..
Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source projects to do the same. It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification. On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> wrote:
On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
Karim-
Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened, and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with a header that defines ..
#define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
Michael