Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes
From: Crist J. Clark (crist.clark@attbi.com)Date: 08/09/02
- Previous message: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- In reply to: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Next in thread: Jon: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:54:07 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com> To: Darren Moffat <Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM>
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Darren Moffat wrote:
> >The whole issue is that,
> >
> > # ifconfig lo0 inet 127.0.0.1
> >
> >Says,
> >
> > lo0: flags=849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 8232
> > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >Even though it doesn't actually add a route corresponding to that
> >network. Doing an ifconfig(1M) on other types of interfaces does put
> >the entry in the routing table.
>
> I'm willing to log a bug or rfe on this for Solaris but before I do
> I need someone to re-state clearly what the problem is that adding a
> route to the 127.0.0.0 network rather than the 127.0.0.1 host is.
On a stock Solaris system, run,
# snoop -d <iface with default route> net 127.0.0.0
And then,
$ ping 127.0.0.2
And watch the loopback packets go out onto the network following the
default route.
> In
> addition to that why we should change the existing behaviour of Solaris
> from what it is today.
As I pointed out above, the 'netmask ff000000' in the ifconfig(1M)
output is basically a lie. The actual mask on the interface is
0xffffffff (only the host route is added).
In addition to that, the fact that we leak 127/8 packets onto the wire
is also, technically, not standards compliant. RFC1122 says,
(g) { 127, <any> }
Internal host loopback address. Addresses of this form
MUST NOT appear outside a host.
-- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
- Previous message: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- In reply to: Darren Moffat: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Next in thread: Jon: "Re: Solaris and lack of loopback routes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
