From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Fri Oct 22 2004 - 13:50:15 GMT-3
At 4:22 PM +0200 10/20/04, <jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com> wrote:
>So just to make things sure, the "microsoft loopback address range" is
>127.0.0.0/8 not 169.254.0.0/16??
>
>Cheers,
>JP
I don't know where Microsoft gets into defining the loopback address.
See RFC 1812, "Requirements for IPv4 Routers" (latest version).
Technically, the loopback address is 127.0.0.1/32, but most
implementations accept the /8.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>marc van hoof
>Sent: 27 September 2004 23:42
>To: 'Church, Chuck'; 'marc van hoof'; 'Howard C. Berkowitz';
>ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: microsoft 1918 address
>
>How much can I talk about this without breaking the NDA ?? ;)
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Church, Chuck [mailto:cchurch@netcogov.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 27 September 2004 11:00 PM
>> To: marc van hoof; Howard C. Berkowitz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: microsoft 1918 address
>>
>> 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.
Simply because it should not be received from the Internet (i.e., a
bogon) doesn't mean it's not useful or well-defined. 169.254.0.0/16
is IANA-defined and discussed in the latest DHCP RFC. It is the
link-local prefix that can be assumed by a DHCP client that cannot
contact a server. The range was first used for link-local
autoaddressing at MIT, not Microsoft.
> >
>> 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 ;)
>>
Every September, user support desks at colleges worldwide leak the
infomration about the XXX content server at 127.0.0.1.
>
> > -----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.
> > >
>> >
>> >-----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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:51 GMT-3