Messages in this thread |  | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19] | Date | 6 Sep 2001 11:20:06 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <20010906155811.BC78DBC06C@spike.porcupine.org> By author: wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Andrey Savochkin: > > Of course, SIOCGIFCONF isn't even close to provide the list of local > > addresses. > > Obvious example: it doesn't enlist all addresses 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2 etc. > > on common systems. If you handle 127.0.0.2 as local, you apply side > > 127.0.0.2 is not local on any of my systems. The only exceptions > are some Linux boxen that I did not ask to do so. >
The RFCs declare that 127.0.0.0/8 is all local. If what you write is true, all your systems are noncompliant.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |