From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Jan 17 9: 0:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078C837B400 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0HH0Ag22189; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:00:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:00:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200201171700.g0HH0Ag22189@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Ruslan Ermilov Subject: Re: misc/33996: 127.0.0.0/8 not added to routing table by default Reply-To: Ruslan Ermilov Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR misc/33996; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Aragon Gouveia Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/33996: 127.0.0.0/8 not added to routing table by default Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:57:56 +0200 On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:40:55PM +0200, Aragon Gouveia wrote: > Hmm, ipfw? Are you referring to blocking incoming packets with 127.0.0.0/8 > as their source? > No, I said "destination address". What I'm talking about here is a brief of section 5.3.7 (Martian Address Filtering) of the "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" RFC 1812. > What I mean to say is that any tcp/ip enabled machine > should be routing the entire class A to it's loopback interface. Pinging any > 127 address from that machine should yield a response, not just 127.0.0.1. > Neither this nor RFC 1122 say that ALL 127.* addresses should be replied to. A loopback interface OTOH may have any of the addresses from the 127 network assigned, and response generated. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ruslan Ermilov" > To: "Aragon Gouveia" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: misc/33996: 127.0.0.0/8 not added to routing table by default > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:02:01AM -0800, Aragon Gouveia wrote: > > > > > > > > > The reserved 127.0.0.0/8 range is not added to FreeBSD's routing > > > table with destination interface lo0 by default. Instead, only > > > 127.0.0.1/32 is being routed to the loopback interface. Pinging, > > > for example, 127.2.3.4 returns no response - in my case it tries > > > to route via the default route out onto the net! > > > > > Nah, this is something that should be controlled with a firewall. > > The default ipfw(8) rules block this. Also, the kernel function > > in_canforward() does not allow forwarding of IP packets with the > > destination address in the 127.0.0.0/8 range. > > > > Can this PR be closed now? -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message