Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!NCNOC.TUCC.EDU!jrr
From: jrr@NCNOC.TUCC.EDU (Joe Ragland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon
Subject: Re: p4200 routing
Message-ID: <8812261506.AA07094@ncnoc.tucc.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 88 15:06:56 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 37

sklower@rosemary.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower) Message-ID:
<27249@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> says in response to my comments about
p4200s forwarding net 127 packets:

>I do not speak in an official capacity for the 4.3 people, but it is
>my strong prejudice that the proteon routers should be doing exactly
>what they do now....  

>If you want somebody to complain about the illegality,
>it would seem to me to be the recipient of the bogon, rather than
>the forwarder. 

I understand, but then you mention:

>After some of the loopback packets escaped onto the arpanet (be it
>noted from other places than berkeley itself), other more official
>(types) raised some sort of hue and cry about making this all legal]

Yes, and I'd rather no loopback packets be allowed to escape from
our NC network thru a gateway for which I am responsible.  That's why
the forwarder is complaining.

Besides direct Berkeley Unix implementations there are many derivatives
that have replicated using net 127 for loopback.  After a while
widespread general practice moves into the realm of defacto standard
whether carefully planned that way or not.

As to the p4200s having to examine every packet, extensive validity/
conformance examinations are already being made by p4200 logic.  We
regularily examine p4200 error messages.  This procedure is often
the first indicator of a mis-configured host on the network.  With
numerous campus departmental host and LAN administrators (with a great
range of experience and inexperience) I find p4200 error diagnostics
quite valuable.  One more check could hardly make much performance
difference.

Thanks Keith for your comments.