On 04/22/08 14:48, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
There is no problem with doing ip a f dev lo ip a a 127.0.0.1/8 dev eth0
Ok.
However, ping 127.0.0.2 will fail of course, yes it is a special handling inside linux (but not really on the topic of "secure"), code-wise it is just like 240.0.0.0/8 which was not routed a few weeks ago until a patch changed it.
I had not considered any thing other than 127.0.0.1 as I don't use the other millions of addresses in the loopback network.
Are you saying that what I'm calling a ""security feature is really a misconception and a side effect of other parts of the kernel?
Further, can you give some back history on the 240/8 network or point me in a direction to do some reading?
Grant. . . . -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
