On 9/13/19 10:14 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> it came out that cumulus and a few others were possibly using high
> values of 127.x for switch chassis addressing, but we haven't got any
> documentation on how that works yet.
Not Cumulus.
I noted I am aware of 2 products from my history that use 127.x
ad
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:54 AM Mark Smith wrote:
>
> (Not subscribed to the ML)
>
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed this patch. I don't think it should be applied, as it
> contradicts RFC 1122, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
> Communication Layers":
Yea! I kicked off a discussion!
> "(g) { 127, }
(Not subscribed to the ML)
Hi,
I've noticed this patch. I don't think it should be applied, as it
contradicts RFC 1122, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers":
"(g) { 127, }
Internal host loopback address. Addresses of this form
MUST NOT a
The 127 concept of "localhost" was basically a straight port over from
original ARPANET behavior. At the time it was envisioned that
many services would exist in the mainframe that would need to be
individually addressable, and long predated alternative approaches
such as tipc, etc.
This reduces
