From owner-cvs-all Sat Feb 2 9:14:17 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from quemadura.shockwave.org (adsl-63-199-168-250.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.199.168.250]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B6B37B404; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from quemadura.shockwave.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by quemadura.shockwave.org (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g12HE3Tv006335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:14:03 -0800 Received: (from pst@localhost) by quemadura.shockwave.org (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) id g12HE3lK006333; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:14:03 -0800 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:14:03 -0800 From: Paul Traina To: "Bruce A. Mah" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Stefan `Sec` Zehl , Ruslan Ermilov , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c Message-ID: <20020202171403.GA6272@pst.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Bruce A. Mah" , Giorgos Keramidas , Stefan `Sec` Zehl , Ruslan Ermilov , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200202021654.g12GswL03156@bmah.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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