Hi Michiel,
On 2016-01-14 12:48:22, you wrote to me:
MvdV>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.0.0.0
MvdV>>> So hard coding 0.0.0.0 als "target unavailable" may block more
MvdV>>> than intended.
WV>> Like what?
MvdV> I don't know. The Wiki article mentions five possible uses:
MvdV> 1 The address a host claims as its own when it has not yet been assigned
an
MvdV> address. Such as when sending the initial DHCPDISCOVER packet when using
MvdV> DHCP.
MvdV> 2 The address a host assigns to itself when address request via DHCP has
MvdV> failed, provided the host's IP stack supports this. This usage has been
MvdV> replaced with the APIPA mechanism in modern operating systems.
MvdV> 3 A way to specify "any IPv4-host at all". It is used in this way when
MvdV> specifying a default route.
MvdV> 4 A way to explicitly specify that the target is unavailable.[1]
MvdV> 5 A way to specify "any IPv4 address at all". It is used in this way
when
MvdV> configuring servers (i.e. when binding listening sockets). This is known
to
MvdV> TCP programmers as INADDR_ANY. (bind(2) binds to addresses, not
interfaces
MvdV> Only # 4 is what I would suggest for unconditional blocking. All the
MvdV> others... I am not in favour of hard coded unconditional unmaskable
MvdV> blocking without knowing exactly what I block.
Only 4 seems applicable when it's returned in a DNS query...
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-W32-1.69.12.144-B20160109
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
|