Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 07:28:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Oleksandr Kryvulia <shuriku@shurik.kiev.ua> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: netmask for loopback interfaces Message-ID: <202111041428.1A4ES2VL029643@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <3244c917-d08a-c72b-5b5a-f74233cf47f5@shurik.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels ?????: > > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting > > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a default > > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as to what the default mask should > > be for loopback interfaces. The standard 127.0.0.1 is added with an 8 bit > > mask currently, but additions without a mask would default to 24 bits. > > There is no warning for missing masks for loopback in the current code. > > I'm not convinced that the mask has any meaning here; only a host route > > to the assigned address is created. Does anyone know of any meaning or > > use of the mask on a loopback address? > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > /8 mask on loopback prevetnts using of 127.x.x.x network anywhere > outside of the localhost. This described in RFC 5735 [1] and 1122 [2] > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5735 > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1122 Saddly that no longer works correctly since there is no longer a 127/8 route in the table. Which, IMHO, is a mistake. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202111041428.1A4ES2VL029643>