Zdenek Radouch wrote:
...
> 
> 2) If it does require kernel hacking, would you like to do it for me?
>     (as I had said, as a contract)
I think what Andi Kleen was talking about below is something like the 
attached 5 minutes patch (applies cleanly to 2.4.2x kernels I have at 
hand, and to 2.6.11 with minor offset). Please donate the 5 minute wages 
to the OSDL or the FSF at your choice ;-)
...
> 
> Not accepting packets with with a loopback address is one
> thing, not accepting any 127.0.0.0/8 packets is entirely something else.

Yes, however it seems to be required by the RFC (quoting RFC 3330 
"special use IPv4 addresses") :

"  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]. "

>>* Andi Kleen <m1y8d0mss2.fsf@muc.de> 2005-03-06 21:19
>>
...
>>>
>>>It is. 127.* is hardcoded in the routing engine and e.g.
>>>it won't accept outside packets with a loopback address.
>>>
>>>Most likely it's enough to change the "LOOPBACK" macro to allow
>>>parts of the Class A to be used for other purposes.
...
-- 
Eran Mann
MRV International