From owner-freebsd-net Tue Feb 19 1:57: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6F837B405; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:57:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org ([12.234.91.48]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020219095700.VINQ2626.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@blossom.cjclark.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:57:00 +0000 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1J9v0n39507; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:57:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:57:00 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Ruslan Ermilov Cc: Archie Cobbs , Garrett Wollman , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rdr 127.0.0.1 and blocking 127/8 in ip_output() Message-ID: <20020219015700.A48401@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <20020218201311.V48401@blossom.cjclark.org> <200202190443.g1J4hji92220@arch20m.dellroad.org> <20020218233554.X48401@blossom.cjclark.org> <20020219082513.GA49060@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020219082513.GA49060@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:25:13AM +0200 X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:35:54PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote: [snip] > > I'd personally prefer someone just fix lo0 so that, > > > > $ ifconfig lo0 inet 127.0.0.1 > > > > Actually added the route, > > > > 127 127.0.0.1 UGSc 0 0 lo0 > > > > Like, > > > > $ ifconfig lo0 > > lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 > > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 > > > > Would imply, but it doesn't. I started digging into the code to see > > about fixing this, but no one seems to be sure if this brokeness is > > intentional or not, so I never got too enthusiastic. > > > Nothing is broken here, we only add ARP routes by default. OK, so that's a reason we do not get the route. If we stick with that as proper behavior, I would then assert that this, > > $ ifconfig lo0 > > lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 > > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Information is at worst incorrect, and at best merely misleading and useless. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message