Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:14:03 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@pst.org> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Stefan `Sec` Zehl <sec@42.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c Message-ID: <20020202171403.GA6272@pst.org> In-Reply-To: <200202021654.g12GswL03156@bmah.dyndns.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
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.
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?20020202171403.GA6272>