Perry Harrington wrote: > > 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. You may not be talking about 127/8 but we are (and I freely admit that may not have been made completely clear). Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff ApacheCon 2001! http://ApacheCon.com/
- 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
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Lars Mathiesen
