From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shan Wei Subject: Re: IPV6 loopback bound socket succeeds connecting to remote host Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:41:39 +0800 Message-ID: <4CF75BC3.1020606@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <616589.97517.qm@web29017.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org >> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki" , David Miller , pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org To: Albert Pretorius Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:58425 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754912Ab0LBInW (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:43:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <616589.97517.qm@web29017.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Albert Pretorius wrote, at 12/02/2010 03:45 PM: > Hi > > --- On Wed, 1/12/10, Shan Wei wrote: >> I think it make nonsense to translate data between loopback >> device and other e.g. eth0 device in same machine. > > I agree, RFC4291 makes it clear for IPV6 that no interface should accept traffic from loopback, I should not have tried to make it behave like IPV4. > I can not find an equivalent statement for IPV4 though, all I could find is this from RFC3330: > > 127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host > loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an > address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host. > This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback, > but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network > anywhere [RFC1700, page 5]. > > Do you perhaps know? There are no same statement for IPv4 loopback address. I have checked RFC1122, RFC1700 and RFC5753 . -- Best Regards ----- Shan Wei > thank you, > Albert Pretorius > > > >