lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:13:12 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <>
CC:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] ipv4: Add interface option to enable routing

On 06/12/2012 03:44 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> Routing of 127/8 is tradtionally forbidden, we consider
> packets from that address block martian when routing and do
> not process corresponding ARP requests.

I'd go beyond "traditionally forbidden" and call it something considered 
fundamental.  That (et al) can only be reached by entities on 
the same system is rather deeply ingrained in the collective 
consciousness after 30-odd years.

> This is a sane default but renders a huge address space practically
> unuseable.

This change would make 127/8 a de facto RFC 1918 address right?  It 
would not be publicly routable.  Are there actually entities who have 
exhausted 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16?

Are there any other stacks which can do this, or would this be an "RFC 
1918" network between (newer)Linux systems only?  (Assuming 
non-newer-linux-based routers would be happy with it)

I cannot say that I'm all that good about practicing the preaching, but 
IPv6 cannot be held-off indefinitely.

rick jones
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists