[Collisions] "controlled interruption" - 127/8 versus RFC1918 space

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Fri Jan 10 01:36:03 UTC 2014

Em 09/01/2014, à(s) 22:25, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> escreveu:

> Joe,
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:
>>> To an engineer, is unusual enough to alert them as well as not send them chasing down non-problems.
>> A correct host implementation will not send datagrams to the network with a source or destination address within 127/8 [RFC1700] or ::1/128 [RFC 4291].
> Yep. 
>> However, it's not obvious what implementations do in real life. RFC3330 comments that the IPv4 loopback address is "ordinarily implemented using only", for example.
> I'm told Linux implements loopback as 127/8, but don't have one handy to test myself.
> MacOSX appears to time out going to anything in 127/8 other than
> FreeBSD 8.2 and 9.1 says "sendto: can't assign requested address”

Windows hosts also use 127/8. Also of notice would handling by popular routers, to asses if the host OS ends up sending the packet, what the router would do with that packet. 


More information about the Collisions mailing list