[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: reconsidering default exit policy

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: reconsidering default exit policy
From: Wes Felter <wesley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:50:02 -0600
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk@seul.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:49:48 -0500
In-reply-to: <20050311002455.GB17010@eecs.harvard.edu>
References: <20050310225243.GA16598@eecs.harvard.edu> <4230DA93.8020601@felter.org> <20050311002455.GB17010@eecs.harvard.edu>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 10, 2005, at 6:24 PM, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:

This has nothing to do with DNS resolution.  The point is that some
kernels short-circuit packets destined to IP addresses corresponding to
other interfaces of the machine.  If I had such a kernel, and one
network interface configured as 140.247.62.119, then all packets
destined to 140.247.62.119 would be short-circuited to the loopback
interface.

Sure, but as I said, a 127.0.0.0/8 exit policy won't affect that behavior.

Wes Felter - wesley@xxxxxxxxxx - http://felter.org/wesley/

References:
- reconsidering default exit policy
  - From: Geoffrey Goodell
- Re: reconsidering default exit policy
  - From: Wes Felter
- Re: reconsidering default exit policy
  - From: Geoffrey Goodell

Prev by Author: Re: reconsidering default exit policy
Next by Author: Re: Upload limit
Previous by thread: Re: reconsidering default exit policy
Next by thread: Re: reconsidering default exit policy
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread