Following up on my own email; I wrote: > Darren Tucker <dtucker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 10:11, Darren Tucker <dtucker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 09:05, Mike Karels <karels@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I haven't seen any other comments. Can you commit this? If not, what > > > > is the procedure to get it committed? > > > > > > Leaving aside the implementation details, the whole concept seems > > > questionable to me. > > To be specific: the concept I find questionable is repurposing (most > > of) 127.0.0.0/8 as global unicast addresses. > Neither this change, nor the larger set of changes I'm making in FreeBSD, > redefine the loopback network. FreeBSD has had an IN_LOOPBACK macro for > years, with essentially the same definition as the default I provided. > The goal of my changes is to reduce the knowledge of the obsolete Class > A/B/C network structure as much as possible. It is true that this change > makes it easier to change the system definition of the loopback network, > but I am not doing that. It seems to me to be preferable for programs like > OpenSSH to use system definitions where possible, and not to hard-code > things like the definition of the loopback network. Where do we stand on this? Any other opinions? Mike _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
