Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ncnoc.tucc.edu!jrr From: jrr@ncnoc.tucc.edu (Joe Ragland) Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon Subject: Re: p4200 routing Message-ID: <8812282011.AA09937@ncnoc.tucc.edu> Date: 28 Dec 88 20:11:33 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 33 Hello Mark (Fedor this time, not Oros): Yea, ain't running a gateway wonderful. Before last Fall when we lost our ARPANET line we occasionally got somebody's syslog records, usually from some SURANET site. Guess advertising default is like asking your neighbors (near and far) for their IP garbage. If you don't know where to send it, then send it here and maybe we'll do something with it! We might even answer your localhost telnet request... Gateways have got to be rather tough beasts, prepared for whatever. This CMU-TEK IP may be broken but it sure is not mine eventhough I have to deal with the results. With seven campuses in seven cities, over a 1000 hosts (don't count PCs) I have enough trouble keeping up with the various LAN administrators (their name, telephone number, and e-mail address). Make no attempt to keep up with host administrators. When I get back at my office next week I'll take a close look at RFC 1009 but it seems you have conveyed the essence rather clear. How the p4200 complies leaves some room for opinion. Without my p4200 documentation in hand I seem to recall the filter mechanism works only for explicit IP addresses, not network classes. That is you can filter 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2, etc. but can not filter all possible 127 addresses by filtering for 127.0.0.0. If this is the case then some situations would be more difficult to specify. However, loopback in most Unix implementations is explicitly 127.0.0.1 as far as I know. Yes, some discussion in the p4200 user's manual on specific internet filtering would be appropriate. But, I would prefer the default be something other than forwarding packets destined for 127.0.0.1 without a whimper. Happy New Year, Joe