[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <616589.97517.qm@web29017.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:45:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Albert Pretorius <albertpretorius@...oo.co.uk>
To: Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org >> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki"
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: IPV6 loopback bound socket succeeds connecting to remote host
Hi
--- On Wed, 1/12/10, Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> I think it make nonsense to translate data between loopback
> device and other e.g. eth0 device in same machine.
I agree, RFC4291 makes it clear for IPV6 that no interface should accept traffic from loopback, I should not have tried to make it behave like IPV4.
I can not find an equivalent statement for IPV4 though, all I could find is this from RFC3330:
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].
Do you perhaps know?
thank you,
Albert Pretorius
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists