From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: TCP 2MSL on loopback Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:25:35 -0800 Message-ID: <45EDDC4F.7010201@hp.com> References: <45EBFD13.1060106@symas.com> <200703051528.02564.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <45ED32CA.5080709@symas.com> <200703061142.00261.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <45EDB55C.2080803@symas.com> <45EDCA15.4060704@cosmosbay.com> <45EDCEF5.1070401@symas.com> <45EDD17F.5000203@cosmosbay.com> <45EDD791.4040908@symas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Howard Chu Return-path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]:48586 "EHLO palrel10.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965109AbXCFVZj (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:25:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <45EDD791.4040908@symas.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > On the other hand, being able to configure a small MSL for the loopback > device is perfectly safe. Being able to configure a small MSL for other > interfaces may be safe, depending on the rest of the network layout. A peanut gallery question - I seem to recall prior discussions about how one cannot assume that a packet destined for a given IP address will remain detined for that given IP address as it could go through a module that will rewrite headers etc. Is traffic destined for 127.0.0.1 immune from that? rick jones