On 12/9/15 6:44 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
On 12/03/15 at 02:35pm, David Miller wrote:
From: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:35:58 -0800
RFC 3927 states that packets from/to IPv4 link-local addresses
(169.254/16) should not be forwarded, yet the Linux networking stack
happily forwards them. Before sending in a patch I wanted to inquire
if this behavior is intentional.
It probably won't break anything if we prohibit this, so sure send
a patch.
I don't have the full email context so apologies if this is not
relevant. The RFC states that such addresses should not be forwarded
_beyond the local link_. So as long as you are not breaking forwarding
of these addresses on the local host, I'm perfectly fine.
Hi Thomas:
The above is the full email context.
The behavior that one of our testers tripped over is packets sent to
169.254 addresses received on link A are forwarded out link B. That's
the behavior that was surprising and seems to violate the RFC.
I bring this up specifically because of:
commit d0daebc3d622f95db181601cb0c4a0781f74f758
Author: Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch>
Date: Tue Jun 12 00:44:01 2012 +0000
ipv4: Add interface option to enable routing of 127.0.0.0/8
Routing of 127/8 is tradtionally forbidden, we consider
packets from that address block martian when routing and do
not process corresponding ARP requests.
[...]
This feature is being used by a popular PaaS which leverages the
127/8 address space locally without polluting an entire routeable
address space.
Daniel pointed out this commit as well. I am referring strictly to
169.254/16 addresses.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
