From owner-cvs-all Sat Feb 2 10:55:16 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6088E37B402; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-33qtnmu.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.222.222] helo=gohan.cjclark.org) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16X5JY-0002zI-00; Sat, 02 Feb 2002 10:55:06 -0800 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by gohan.cjclark.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) id g12Ire205780; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:53:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:52:18 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: "Bruce A. Mah" , 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: <20020202105218.D1280@gohan.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020202171403.GA6272@pst.org>; from pst@pst.org on Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:14:03AM -0800 X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ 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 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. -- 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message