Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 0/8
draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-0-05
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Seth David Schoen , John IETF Gilmore , David M. Täht | ||
| Last updated | 2023-12-29 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-0-05
Internet Engineering Task Force S.D. Schoen
Internet-Draft J. Gilmore
Updates: 1122, 1812, 2827, 3704 (if approved) D. Täht
Intended status: Standards Track IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
Expires: 1 July 2024 29 December 2023
Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 0/8
draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-0-05
Abstract
This document redesignates 0/8, the lowest block in the IPv4 address
space, so that this space is no longer reserved. It asks
implementers to make addresses in this range fully usable for unicast
use on the Internet.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Present situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Change in Status of 0/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. No Change to Interpretations of 0.0.0.0 . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Other Existing Uses of 0/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Compatibility and Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Unofficial uses of 0/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
With ever-increasing pressure to conserve IP address space on the
Internet, it makes sense to consider where relatively minor changes
can be made to fielded practice to improve numbering efficiency. One
such change, proposed by this document, is to allow the use of more
than 16 million historically reserved addresses at the bottom of the
IPv4 address space.
This document provides history and rationale to change the status of
the "0/8" or "zeroth" region of the IPv4 address space (historically
known as "unspecified network" or "this network") from reserved to
unreserved. These addresses are already usable for unicast traffic
in some popular TCP/IP implementations today. Standardization as
unicast addresses will eventually allow them to be later deployed by
Internet stewardship organizations to relieve address space scarcity.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
2. Background
The early Internet reserved many kinds of IPv4 addresses for special
purposes. One important such designation involves every IPv4 address
beginning with the octet 0 (now "0/8"); all these addresses were
designated for use in potential device autoconfiguration features
that were to use ICMP messages [RFC0792]. This function was
eventually entirely supplanted by other protocols, which, in IPv4,
now use only the single address 0.0.0.0.
Autodiscovery of a network-provided configuration came to be handled
for IPv4 by DHCP [RFC2131], and formerly by its predecessors BOOTP
[RFC0951] and RARP [RFC0903]. In modern practice, the source address
of a device seeking an IPv4 configuration from the local network is
indicated with a link-layer broadcast in which the network-layer
source address 0.0.0.0 and the network-layer destination address is
255.255.255.255.
The reservation of 0/8, despite its obsolescence, has been reiterated
in all subsequent IPv4 address allocation RFCs and IANA documents.
By 1989, [RFC1122], section 3.2.2.7, for example, noted that this
mechanism was already obsolete, even as section 3.2.1.3 continued to
expressly prohibit the use of network number 0 for other purposes.
The single special address 0.0.0.0(/32) acquired a variety of related
meanings including "unspecified address", "unknown address", "address
not set", "address not applicable", etc., while 0.0.0.0/0 means "the
default route", which contains every IPv4 host. This single address
has remained sufficient for these purposes.
3. Present situation
Today, 0/8 addresses (except for the special address 0.0.0.0) are no
longer used in any autoconfiguration protocols. All of this
functionality is handled using other distinctly-specified mechanisms
and address space, both in IPv4 and IPv6.
The designation of 0/8 as reserved address space is tracked by IANA
in the IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry [IANA4], as provided for
by RFC 6890 [RFC6890]. No known software makes use of this address
space in the headers of IPv4 packets transmitted over the wire.
While some software already treats it as a potentially valid address,
the most common behavior by host and router software when
encountering any address within 0/8 is to reject it as a Martian
address. These and all other known uses are discussed in the
sections "Other Existing Uses of 0/8" and "Compatibility and
Interoperability", below.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
Since this address space has no existing widespread practical use or
interpretation, it can be used for other purposes and help alleviate
the shortage of IPv4 addresses. This memo therefore unreserves it,
redesignating it as unassigned unicast addresses, available for
potential global unicast or other allocation.
4. Change in Status of 0/8
The purpose of this document is to make addresses in the range 0/8
available for active unicast use on the public Internet. This
includes supporting them for numbering and addressing networks and
hosts, like any other unicast address.
As an exception, the address 0.0.0.0 retains its existing special
meanings, as described in the subsection "No Change to
Interpretations of 0.0.0.0".
Host and router software SHOULD treat addresses in the 0/8 range,
except the host address 0.0.0.0, in the same way that they would
treat other unicast IPv4 addresses. Software SHOULD be capable of
accepting datagrams from, and generating datagrams to, addresses
within this range.
Clients for autoconfiguration mechanisms such as DHCP [RFC2131]
SHOULD accept a lease or assignment of an address within 0/8, except
the host address 0.0.0.0, whenever the underlying operating system is
capable of accepting it.
4.1. No Change to Interpretations of 0.0.0.0
The unqualified address 0.0.0.0 or the individual host address
0.0.0.0/32 has many special meanings which are described in a section
"Other Existing Uses of 0/8", below. This document does not make
this all-zero address an individually valid unicast address, and it
should still not be taken to identify an individual device. As
described in prior Internet standards, the address 0.0.0.0 MUST NOT
be assigned to an individual interface. This address is valid to
appear in both source and destination addresses, with special
meanings, in protocols already defined or to be defined in the
future.
The network identifier 0.0.0.0/0 also continues to be used to refer
to an IPv4 default route (a route which matches any Internet host).
This is not inconsistent with the use of explicit routes to
individual networks within 0.0.0.0/8. Existing CIDR-based routing
logic is readily capable of distinguishing an object like 0.0.0.0/8
(a route referring to a specific /8 whose leftmost octet is always 0)
from one like 0.0.0.0/0 (a route including to any IPv4 host); in
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
current routing practice, the default route 0.0.0.0/0 already always
overlaps every more-specific route, regardless of how many zero bits
appear at the beginning of a more-specific route's destination.
For avoidance of doubt, we note that all routing implementations MUST
permit routes to overlap, and MUST distinguish the default route
0.0.0.0/0 from a more-specific CIDR route such as 0.0.0.0/8 or
0.0.0.0/10, as well as from a leading-zero-octet route such as
0.1.0.0/16. These distinctions are already implied by [RFC4632],
section 3.1 (since neither "n" nor "x" is ever stated to be nonzero),
and sections 5.1 and 5.2 (describing and requiring generality in the
treatment of arbitrary routes, including the default route).
5. Other Existing Uses of 0/8
There are a handful of other uses of 0/8 with special meanings in
existing Internet protocols and standards.
A large number of protocols and environments use the special address
0.0.0.0 to mean "unspecified", "unknown", "unset", "not applicable",
"any address", "no address", or, as 0.0.0.0/0, the default route
containing every IPv4 network. (Two examples, among dozens, are
[RFC2131]'s use of 0.0.0.0 in DHCP packets to mean "my IP source
address is unknown" and [RFC4541]'s use of 0.0.0.0 to mean "proxied
IGMP membership report from a non-Querier".)
All these uses of the address 0.0.0.0 are unchanged by this memo.
Due to its variety of special meanings, the address 0.0.0.0 MUST NOT
be allocated exclusively to a specific organization or network.
Existing standards significantly constrain, but do not preclude,
circumstances in which it may appear on the wire.
There are three known non-unicast uses of the 0/8 block as a whole in
the RFC series.
* RFC 3338 [RFC3338] (an IPv6 transition mechanism) used 0/8
addresses as synthetic addresses representing surrogate IPv6
addresses, but this practice has already been deprecated by
[RFC6535], which indicated that this transition mechanism should
switch to RFC 1918 private addresses.
* RFC 7453 [RFC7453] (an MPLS-related SNMP MIB definition) overloads
the meaning of addresses in 0/8 by designating them as local
identifiers, contrasting with IPv4 addresses. Before production
use of 0/8 on the global Internet occurs, this MIB should be
updated to provide a separate field for local identifiers and to
deprecate the old semantics.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
* RFC 6235 [RFC6235] and RFC 8932 [RFC8932] both provide mechanisms
for anonymizing network flow datasets that can map addresses into
0/8 in order to obscure them. Implementers SHOULD take into
account that source addresses in the future may already lie in
this range and will still require anonymization; an IPv4 address
SHOULD NOT be assumed to have been anonymized already merely
because it is within 0/8.
6. Compatibility and Interoperability
Older Internet standards counseled implementations in varying ways to
reject packets from, and not to generate packets to, addresses within
0/8.
Among several standards calling for this behavior, RFC 1122, section
3.2.1.3, and RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.11, say that hosts and routers,
respectively, MUST NOT send packets using these addresses, outside of
configuration-discovery processes. RFC 1122 implies hosts MUST
discard, and RFC 1812 implies routers SHOULD NOT forward, packets
whose source address is within 0/8.
RFC 3704 [RFC3704] (BCP 84) cites RFC 2827 [RFC2827] (BCP 38) in
asking providers to filter based on source address:
| RFC 2827 recommends that ISPs police their customers' traffic by
| dropping traffic entering their networks that is coming from a
| source address not legitimately in use by the customer network.
| The filtering includes but is in no way limited to the traffic
| whose source address is a so-called "Martian Address" - an address
| that is reserved, including any address within 0.0.0.0/8,
| 10.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16,
| 224.0.0.0/4, or 240.0.0.0/4.
Other RFCs such as 3964, 4380, and 6491 have reiterated specific
lists of Martian ranges for other purposes, rather than referring to
the subsequently-created IANA Special-Purpose Address Registry. We
encourage future RFC authors and implementers to refer to the
Special-Purpose Address Registry rather than explicitly providing or
using a list of reserved addresses within their documentation.
In this context, RFC 3704 specifies filtering of these addresses as
source (not destination) addresses at a network ingress point as a
countermeasure against forged source addresses, limiting forwarded
packets' source addresses to only the set which have been actually
assigned to the customer's network. The RFC's mention of these
"Martian Addresses" is based on the assumption that they could never
be legitimately in use by the customer network.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
Because the 0/8 address space is no longer reserved as a whole, an
address within this space is no longer inherently a "Martian"
address. Both hosts and routers MUST NOT hard-code a policy of
always rejecting such addresses. Hosts and routers SHOULD NOT be
configured to apply Martian address filtering to any packet solely on
the basis of its reference to a source (or destination) address in
0/8. Maintainers of lists of "Martian addresses" MUST NOT designate
addresses from this range as "Martian". As noted elsewhere, the
address 0.0.0.0 retains its special meaning, but is also not a
"Martian" address.
The filtering recommended by RFC 3704 is designed for border routers,
not for hosts. To the extent that an ISP had allocated an address
range from within 0/8 to its customer, RFC 3704 would already not
require packets with those source addresses to be filtered out by the
ISP's border router.
Since deployed implementations' willingness to accept 0/8 addresses
as valid unicast addresses varies, a host to which an address from
this range has been assigned may also have a varying ability to
communicate with other hosts.
Such a host might be inaccessible by some devices either on its local
network segment or elsewhere on the Internet, due to a combination of
host software limitations or reachability limitations in the network.
IPv4 unicast interoperability with 0/8 can be expected to improve
over time following the publication of this document. Before or
after allocations are eventually made within this range,
"debogonization" efforts for allocated ranges can improve
reachability to the whole address block. Similar efforts have
already been done by Cloudflare on 1.1.1.1 [Cloudflare], and by RIPE
Labs on 1/8 [RIPElabs18], 2a10::/12 [RIPElabs2a1012], and 128.0/16
[RIPElabs128016]. The Internet community can use network probing
with any of several measurement-oriented platforms to investigate how
usable these addresses are at any particular point in time, as well
as to localize medium-to-large-scale routing problems. (Examples are
described in [Huston], [NLNOGRing], and [Atlas].) Any network
operator to whom such addresses are made available by a future
allocation will have to examine the situation in detail to determine
how well its interoperability requirements will be met.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
7. Unofficial uses of 0/8
Some organizations may be using portions of 0/8 internally as RFC
1918-type private-use address space, for example for internal
communications within datacenters. We currently have no publicly-
documented examples of this practice. However, future allocations of
0/8 could result in use of this space on the public Internet in ways
that overlap these unofficial private-use addresses, creating
ambiguity about whether a particular host intended to use such an
address to refer to a private or public network (since the address
would then have two distinct interpretations with different
addressing scopes). Among other unintended outcomes, hosts or
firewalls that have extended greater trust to other hosts based on
their use of a certain unofficial network number (that was considered
to imply presence on a LAN or within an organization) may eventually
receive legitimate traffic from an external network to which this
address space has been allocated.
Operators of networks that are making unofficial uses of portions of
0/8 may wish to plan to discontinue these uses and renumber their
internal networks, or to request that IANA formally designate certain
ranges as additional Private-Use areas.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo unreserves the address block 0/8. It therefore requests
IANA to update the IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry [IANA4]
by removing the entry for 0/8, whose existing authority is RFC 791
[RFC0791], Section 3.2. Additionally, it requests IANA to update the
IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry by changing the entry for 000/8 from
"IANA - Local Identification, 1981-09, RESERVED" to "Unallocated,
Former IANA - Local Identification, [Date of this RFC], UNALLOCATED".
Finally, IANA is requested to prepare for this address space to be
addressed in the reverse DNS space in in-addr.arpa.
This memo does not effect a registration, transfer, allocation, or
authorization for use of these addresses by any specific entity.
This memo's scope is to require IPv4 software implementations to
support the ordinary unicast use of addresses in the newly
unallocated range 0.0.0.1 through 0.255.255.255. During a
significant transition period, it would only be prudent for the
global Internet to use those addresses for experimental purposes such
as de-bogonization testing. After that transition period, a
responsible entity such as IETF or IANA could later consider whether,
how and when to allocate those addresses to entities or to other
protocol functions.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
9. Security Considerations
The change specified by this document could create a period of
ambiguity about historical and future interpretations of the meaning
of host and network addresses in 0/8. Some networks and hosts
currently discard all IPv4 packets bearing these addresses, pursuant
to statements in prior standards that packets containing these
addresses have no agreed-upon meaning and ought not to be sent over
the wire.
Disparate filtering processes and rules at present, and in response
to the adoption of this document, could make it easier for rogue
network operators to hijack or spoof portions of this address space
in order to send malicious traffic.
Live traffic, accepted and processed by other devices, may
legitimately originate from 0/8 addresses in the future. Network
operators, firewalls, and intrusion-detection systems may need to
take account of this change in various regards, including so as to
avoid permitting either more or less traffic from such addresses than
they expected.
Automated systems generating reports, and human beings reading those
reports, SHOULD NOT assume that the use of a 0/8 source address
indicates spoofing, an attack, or a new incompatible packet format.
At the same time, they SHOULD NOT assume that the use of 0/8 is
impossible or will be precluded by other systems' behavior.
Since the Linux kernel has already defaulted to the specified
behavior for two years (see "Implementation Status"), it is already
possible for deployed systems to disagree about whether packets
containing 0/8 may validly appear on the wire. This document offers
an opportunity to move to a new consensus in which implementations
widely agree that these packets are potentially valid, while giving
implementers considerable advance notice ahead of any future
deployment of these addresses on the public Internet.
10. Acknowledgements
This document directly builds on prior work by Dave Täht and John
Gilmore as part of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project.
Acknowledgements of contributions to their drafts still need to be
transposed here.
11. Normative References
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
[IANA4] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IANA IPv4 Special-
Purpose Address Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-
registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC0903] Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, "A
Reverse Address Resolution Protocol", STD 38, RFC 903,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0903, June 1984,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc903>.
[RFC0951] Croft, W. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0951, September 1985,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc951>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC3338] Lee, S., Shin, M-K., Kim, Y-J., Nordmark, E., and A.
Durand, "Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-API" (BIA)",
RFC 3338, DOI 10.17487/RFC3338, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3338>.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
Switches", RFC 4541, DOI 10.17487/RFC4541, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4541>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC6235] Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
Support", RFC 6235, DOI 10.17487/RFC6235, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6235>.
[RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6535, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[RFC7453] Mahalingam, V., Sampath, K., Aldrin, S., and T. Nadeau,
"MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 7453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7453, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7453>.
[RFC8932] Dickinson, S., Overeinder, B., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., and
A. Mankin, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service
Operators", BCP 232, RFC 8932, DOI 10.17487/RFC8932,
October 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8932>.
12. Informative References
[Atlas] RIPE Network Coordination Centre, "RIPE Atlas",
<https://atlas.ripe.net/>.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
[Cloudflare]
Strong, M., "Fixing reachability to 1.1.1.1, GLOBALLY!", 4
April 2018, <https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-
reachability-to-1-1-1-1-globally/>.
[Huston] Huston, G., "Detecting IP Address Filters", 13 January
2012, <https://labs.ripe.net/author/gih/detecting-ip-
address-filters/>.
[NLNOGRing]
NLNOG RING, "10 Years of NLNOG RING",
<https://ring.nlnog.net/post/10-years-of-nlnog-ring/>.
[RIPElabs128016]
Aben, E., "The Curious Case of 128.0/16", 6 December 2011,
<https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/the-curious-case-
of-128016/>.
[RIPElabs18]
Schwarzinger, F., "Pollution in 1/8", 3 February 2010,
<https://labs.ripe.net/author/franz/pollution-in-18/>.
[RIPElabs2a1012]
Aben, E., "The Debogonisation of 2a10::/12", 17 January
2020, <https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/the-
debogonisation-of-2a1012/>.
Appendix A. Implementation Status
The behavior specified by this document has been implemented by the
Linux kernel since version 5.2, released in July 2019. Accordingly,
it has been included in various operating system releases, including
Ubuntu 19.10 and Fedora 31 from October 2019, and some Android 11 and
12 devices.
This behavior has also been implemented by the OpenBSD kernel and
userspace since May 6, 2022, and hence appears in OpenBSD 7.2,
released on October 20, 2022.
This behavior is disabled by default in FreeBSD, but enabled by
"sysctl net.inet.ip.allow_net0=1", available in FreeBSD 14.0,
released in November 2023. It has been available in development
releases since July 13, 2022.
We have prepared a patch which enables this behavior on NetBSD. It
has not been merged as of December 2023.
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Unicast Use of 0/8 December 2023
Routing of subnets in the 0/8 range is supported by the Gobgp routing
daemon, as of release 3.0.0 in March 2022 (or earlier).
Support for 0/8 addressing may be typical of many DHCP
implementations (because the 0/8 address assignment special case has
often been handled at the kernel level). If the underlying operating
system supports 0/8 assignment to an interface, the final official
ISC DHCP release (4.4.3) supports 0/8 allocation as both client and
server, as do Busybox DHCP udhcpc/udhcpd (release 1.1.15), and ISC
Kea (which currently includes only a DHCP server implementation).
Authors' Addresses
Seth David Schoen
IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
San Francisco, CA
United States of America
Email: schoen@loyalty.org
John Gilmore
IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
PO Box 170640-rfc
San Francisco, CA 94117-0640
United States of America
Email: gnu@rfc.toad.com
David M. Täht
IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
Half Moon Bay, CA
United States of America
Email: dave@taht.net
Schoen, et al. Expires 1 July 2024 [Page 13]