Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:20:02 +0800 From: Chris <chris@chrisland.net> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 127/8 continued Message-ID: <3BB0A0A2.6CCC454B@chrisland.net> References: <20010924094048.X5906-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lamont Granquist wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Joe Abley wrote: > > Installing a null covering route for 127/8 with the blackhole bit > > set seems a good way of preventing addresses with a destination > > within 127/8 from being sent out on a non-loopback interface, without > > resorting to nasty hacks which make address handling on the loopback > > interface different to every other interface. It is also consistent > > with the robustness principle. > > > > route add 127.0.0.0 -netmask 255.0.0.0 -iface lo0 -blackhole > > It seems that 127.0.0.1 works when you do this, as do aliases that you add > to the lo0 interface. Works for me. Isn't that when we configure an IP on an interface, it will automatically create a route for the corresponding "connected" network? e.g: # ifconfig xl0 inet 192.168.20.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire 192.168.20 link#1 UC 0 0 xl0 => So for lo0, when we configure it as 127.0.0.1/8, there should be a connected route of 127/8 pointing to lo0. But it is not there now. A bug in... ifconfig? If that's the case, I will think adding a static route for 127/8 in rc.network be a temp solution. Regards, Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BB0A0A2.6CCC454B>