Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!PATTON.NYSER.NET!fedor
From: fedor@PATTON.NYSER.NET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon
Subject: Re: p4200 routing
Message-ID: <8812281602.AA05582@patton.nyser.net>
Date: 28 Dec 88 16:02:58 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 42

>Date: Tue, 27 Dec 88 09:45:49 PST
>From: Jim Warner <eshop@jupiter.ucsc.edu>
>Subject: Re: p4200 routing
>
>>Personally, I'm with Keith.  The network 127 loopback functionality is
>>a BSD'ism, and hardly something a generic gateway like a p4200
>>should be concerned with.
>>					Thanks,
>>					   Milo
>-------------------------------------------
>The status of 127 is now something more than a BSD'ism.  RFC1009
>says in section 4.4 "It is the responsibility of a gateway to
>avoid propagating such erroneous addresses;..."  The section
>contains a reference to section 2.1(g) which specifically mentions
>(127, <any>).
>
>jim warner
>
>
>>

	After posting my initial message on this subject, I bounced
	the RFC text off of someone here.  I think the wording in the
	RFC in section 4.4 is ambiguous, contradictory, whatever.

	In the excerpt that jim provided above, it seems to imply that
	the gateway should never forward 127.0.0.1 regardless of the
	configuration.  It is the responsibility of the gateway, not the
	network administrator.

	But.... the following paragraph begins something like:
	"To enforce these restrictions, it is suggested that a
	 gateway include a configurable filter for datagrams and
	 routing updates."

	Now after thinking about it for a whole ten minutes, I would
	say that the P4200 is compliant to the wording of the RFC, but
	not the "spirit" of section 4.4 in RFC 1009.

	And so it goes,

	Mark