Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 08:05:13 +0200 From: Oleksandr Kryvulia <shuriku@shurik.kiev.ua> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: netmask for loopback interfaces Message-ID: <3244c917-d08a-c72b-5b5a-f74233cf47f5@shurik.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <202111032301.1A3N121R075694@mail.karels.net> References: <202111032301.1A3N121R075694@mail.karels.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels пишет: > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3244c917-d08a-c72b-5b5a-f74233cf47f5>