From: Church, Chuck (cchurch@netcogov.com)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 10:00:29 GMT-3
I hope they've never ask a question that ambiguous! It implies that
this vendor has their own loopback address, other than 127.0.0.0/8.
Conversely, the 169.254.0.0/16 wouldn't ever be considered loopback, as
it doesn't loop anything back. It is considered a bogon
(http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-list.html ) and should be filtered
like any others.
P.S. 127.0.0.0/8 is a great block to use for Windows machines. I've
yet to be infected once since using it ;)
Chuck Church
Lead Design Engineer
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation
1210 N. Parker Rd.
Greenville, SC 29609
Home office: 864-335-9473
Cell: 703-819-3495
cchurch@netcogov.com <-note new address!
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
marc van hoof
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:26 AM
To: 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: microsoft 1918 address
While i can't say too much due to NDA's in place... <clears throat>
$10* says that if they're asking you to block a "microsoft loopback
address" they mean 127.0.0.1 and just haven't mentioned that it's also a
non-microsoft loopback address...
regards,
-marc.
*Please note, $10 is in Australian currency and therefore useless.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Scott Morris
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 12:39 PM
To: 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: microsoft 1918 address
Ahh... I stand corrected! (or sit as the case may be!)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 10:11 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: microsoft 1918 address
At 9:56 PM -0400 9/25/04, Scott Morris wrote:
>While that's true, I believe RFC 3330 (if memory serves) came AFTER
>Microsoft decided to start handing out these addresses.
>
>One o' them things. :)
No, Microsoft decided to use it after MIT was using it on their
networks,
according to a conversation I had with Jeff Schiller, MIT network
manager
and former Security Area Director of the IETF.
>
>
>Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CISSP,
>JNCIP, et al.
>IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
>IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
>http://www.ipexpert.net
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>James
>Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:05 PM
>To: joshua lauer
>Cc: John Matus; lab
>Subject: Re: microsoft 1918 address
>
>On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 07:47:14PM -0400, joshua lauer wrote:
>> I know when you dont have ip assigned ala' dhcp or static XP assigns
>> you some itself, this is to facilitate "plug and play networking"
for
>> home user. Those are in the private range, as far as them being
>> allocated to MS, I'm not sure..
>
>It's not a Microsoft thing. It's an industry approved standard addr
space
>for link local... It's kind of like IPv6's built-in link local, except
that
>it behaves differently in v4.. :)
>
>hth,
>-J
>
>
>> >MCSE, CCNP
>> >Office: 818-782-2061
>> >Cell: 818-430-8372
>> >jmatus@pacbell.net
>> >
>>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>> >__ Subscription information may be found at:
>> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:50 GMT-3