Re: netmask for loopback interfaces
- Reply: Jamie Landeg-Jones : "Re: netmask for loopback interfaces"
- In reply to: Mike Karels : "netmask for loopback interfaces"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 06:05:13 UTC
04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels пишет: > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a default > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as to what the default mask should > be for loopback interfaces. The standard 127.0.0.1 is added with an 8 bit > mask currently, but additions without a mask would default to 24 bits. > There is no warning for missing masks for loopback in the current code. > I'm not convinced that the mask has any meaning here; only a host route > to the assigned address is created. Does anyone know of any meaning or > use of the mask on a loopback address? > > Thanks, > Mike > /8 mask on loopback prevetnts using of 127.x.x.x network anywhere outside of the localhost. This described in RFC 5735 [1] and 1122 [2] [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5735 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1122