On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:05:32AM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > when routing is disabled. Further, there's no circumstance I can think > of where it makes sense to route 127/8 from an external interface! That It's not 127/8 that we're talking about. You can assign perfectly valid real world IPs to lo interfaces. The purpose is to get a machine that listens on an IP but doesn't ARP for it. > behaviour should not be switchable. > > Cheers, > > Ben. > --Perry -- Perry Harrington Director of zelur xuniL () perry at webcom dot com System Architecture Think Blue. /\
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Elias Levy
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Kyle Sparger
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing fla... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routin... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Dan Harkless
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... John Cronin
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Neil W Rickert
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... David Litchfield
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Robert Collins
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Lincoln Yeoh