Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:20:12 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.org>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Stefan `Sec` Zehl <sec@42.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c Message-ID: <20020204112012.A32064@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <20020202105218.D1280@gohan.cjclark.org> References: <200202011042.g11Ag9U93410@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020202123007.GA19270@matrix.42.org> <20020202140147.GA71238@hades.hell.gr> <20020202164938.GA5777@pst.org> <200202021654.g12GswL03156@bmah.dyndns.org> <20020202171403.GA6272@pst.org> <20020202105218.D1280@gohan.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 10:52:18AM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:14:03AM -0800, Paul Traina wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:54:58AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > > > If memory serves me right, Paul Traina wrote: > > > > Please don't hard-code this. We've seen some people actually use the > > > > loopback network as their internal (to their AS) network. Loopback > > > > means different things to different people. It's the same thing as > > > > the firewall stuff. > > > > > > It looks pretty hard-coded in RFC 1122. Are you saying FreeBSD should > > > continue to ignore this part of the Host Requirements document? > > > > Yes. I am. > > > > a) 1122 is plagued with controversy. I came along to the IETF shortly > > after it was written, shelved, re-written, and finally published as > > "well, it's better than nothing." We didn't like it then, and it > > would be a mistake to elevate it to holy scripture now. > > > > b) FreeBSD itself cannot know where the chassis boundary is. Consider > > devices that have multiple IP entities inside one skin. > > If each entity is a host, it must conform to the standards. > > > c) Many machines don't use 127.0.0.1 as their loopback address (consider > > Cisco routers), so some network providers used network 127 as a private > > OAM or backbone network. > > All of the *BSD's unconditionally drop 127/8 coming in to the host in > ip_input.c. If you cannot receive on that network, it was broken > already. > Thanks Crist, I was hoping someone would tell them the truth. :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020204112012.A32064>