On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:57:33PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:50:13AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > > <<On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:03:47 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > > Please test with and without this patch.
> > >
> > > I continue to believe that this should be done by fixing the routing,
> > > not by adding additional hacks to the already-bloated ip_output()
> > > path.
> > >
> > BSD always had these "hacks" (rfc1122 requirements) in in_canforward().
> > RFC1122 requires the host to not send 127/8 addresses out of loopback,
> > whether or not its routes are set up correctly.
> I pretty much agree with Garrett on this one.
> Loopback is a special critter; it has all sorts of
> requirements, like not ARP'ing for addresses configured
> on it (otherwise FreeBSD is not usable for DSR, which I
> think it currently is not), etc..
Heh? Without my patch:
# ifconfig rl0 inet
rl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.4.115 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.4.255
inet 127.0.0.2 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 127.255.255.255
# ping 127.0.0.3
# tcpdump -n net 127
tcpdump: listening on rl0
10:29:12.685957 arp who-has 127.0.0.3 tell 127.0.0.2
2480 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel
> It looks to me that this should be handled some place
> other than ip_output().
Perhaps you don't realize that we can't fix "this" with
just routing because we are also not allowed to send out
packets originated from loopback network, like:
ping -s 127.1 220.127.116.11
telnet -S 127.1 18.104.22.168
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message