From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:36 -0400 Received: from spike.porcupine.org ([168.100.189.2]:35337 "EHLO spike.porcupine.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:30 -0400 Subject: Re: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias In-Reply-To: "from Alan Cox at Sep 6, 2001 05:39:09 pm" To: Alan Cox Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Wietse Venema , Andrey Savochkin , Matthias Andree , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Time-Zone: USA EST, 6 hours behind central European time X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20010906164550.AD01BBC06C@spike.porcupine.org> From: wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox: > > 127.0.0.2 is not local on any of my systems. The only exceptions > > are some Linux boxen that I did not ask to do so. > > Todays reading is from RFC990 in the book of Reynolds & Postel, page number 6 > > And the IETF spake thusly > > | The class A network number 127 is assigned the "loopback" function, that > | is, a datagram sent by a higher level protocol to a network 127 address > | should loop back inside the host. No datagram "sent" to a network 127 > | address should ever appear on any network anywhere. That's routing. I was talking about accepting connections. None of my systems accepts connections on 127.0.0.2, except for a couple Linux boxen that I did not ask to do so. Wietse