Is it possible to put a real IP on a loopback device?
Is it possible to put a real IP (not in the 127.x.x.x) range on a loopback device?
ip loopback
add a comment |
Is it possible to put a real IP (not in the 127.x.x.x) range on a loopback device?
ip loopback
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
3
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40
add a comment |
Is it possible to put a real IP (not in the 127.x.x.x) range on a loopback device?
ip loopback
Is it possible to put a real IP (not in the 127.x.x.x) range on a loopback device?
ip loopback
ip loopback
edited Dec 3 '17 at 2:11
Jeff Schaller
38.6k1053125
38.6k1053125
asked Nov 28 '17 at 12:30
Peter Smit
4892927
4892927
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
3
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40
add a comment |
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
3
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
3
3
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Nothing forbids to do it.
# ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1/8
# ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
# ping -c 1 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/0.025/0.025/0.000 ms
Update:
For this address to persist after a reboot on Ubuntu 16.04, you can modify your /etc/network/interfaces
file with these ethtool
commands:
auto lo lo:1
iface lo inet loopback
iface lo:1 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
network 10.0.0.0
netmask 255.0.0.0
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
add a comment |
On the current Linux kernel with the ip
utility it is quite simple:
ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
This can be useful when you have a service that binds a port on an interface, and want to run a different program on the same port and network. I use it to enable both bind
and dnsmasq
to co-exist on the same server.
If you are using /etc/network/interfaces
to configure your interfaces, then update the lo
stanza to include:
up ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
add a comment |
As an alternative to using lo:0
, you can also use dummy
interfaces in Linux as in:
ifconfig dummy0 10.0.0.1/32
ifconfig dummy1 10.1.1.1/24
In addition to others answers:
- I do not recommend changing the usual/official loopback interface address as a lot of functionality depends on it;
- however, you can have/create several loopback/dummy interfaces - either lo:0 to lo:255 or dummyX interfaces;
- it has to be taken into account that lo:0 to lo:255 are aliases, whilst dummyX are full interfaces;
- moreover, one of the usual tactics in Linux for creating virtual IPs over BGP or OSPF is assigning them to loopback/dummy interfaces AND making pathways to them via routing;
- again, some daemons have problems with announcing addresses in aliases (for instance, quagga ) - so dummyX interfaces are advised in those cases;
- I would stress that without routing in the infrastructure, such addresses are only known/capable of being used in the server in question;
- assigning a private/public address to a loopback interface, without the proper routing can be a temporary low computing cost measure to blacklist communications temporarily with an IP address/network.
For more details, see for instance a BIND anycast setup tutorial done with Quagga/BIRD.
routing clues here: OSPF: Migrating Quagga to BIRD
P.S. Linux by default only creates dummy0 and dummy1 and has to be instructed to create a bigger number of dummy interfaces.
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
add a comment |
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you use an IP that is ever going to be accessed by your system, any data that it tries to send there will be redirected to the local system instead, which can cause all kinds of odd networking issues. This means in particular that you can't safely use anything outside of the following ranges:
127.0.0.0/8
192.0.2.0/24
198.51.100.0/24
203.0.113.0/24
240.0.0.0/4
With the possible exception of any of the following dependent on how your other network interfaces are configured:
10.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
169.254.0.0/16
This is a case where RFC 1925, section 2, item 3 applies.
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407494%2fis-it-possible-to-put-a-real-ip-on-a-loopback-device%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Nothing forbids to do it.
# ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1/8
# ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
# ping -c 1 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/0.025/0.025/0.000 ms
Update:
For this address to persist after a reboot on Ubuntu 16.04, you can modify your /etc/network/interfaces
file with these ethtool
commands:
auto lo lo:1
iface lo inet loopback
iface lo:1 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
network 10.0.0.0
netmask 255.0.0.0
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
add a comment |
Nothing forbids to do it.
# ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1/8
# ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
# ping -c 1 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/0.025/0.025/0.000 ms
Update:
For this address to persist after a reboot on Ubuntu 16.04, you can modify your /etc/network/interfaces
file with these ethtool
commands:
auto lo lo:1
iface lo inet loopback
iface lo:1 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
network 10.0.0.0
netmask 255.0.0.0
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
add a comment |
Nothing forbids to do it.
# ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1/8
# ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
# ping -c 1 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/0.025/0.025/0.000 ms
Update:
For this address to persist after a reboot on Ubuntu 16.04, you can modify your /etc/network/interfaces
file with these ethtool
commands:
auto lo lo:1
iface lo inet loopback
iface lo:1 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
network 10.0.0.0
netmask 255.0.0.0
Nothing forbids to do it.
# ifconfig lo:1 10.0.0.1/8
# ifconfig lo:1
lo:1 Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
# ping -c 1 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.025/0.025/0.025/0.000 ms
Update:
For this address to persist after a reboot on Ubuntu 16.04, you can modify your /etc/network/interfaces
file with these ethtool
commands:
auto lo lo:1
iface lo inet loopback
iface lo:1 inet static
address 10.0.0.1
network 10.0.0.0
netmask 255.0.0.0
edited Nov 29 '17 at 20:48
answered Nov 28 '17 at 12:37
jlliagre
46.4k783132
46.4k783132
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
add a comment |
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
Does this persist after a reboot?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
No. Better to state the precise OS / distribution you are using to get a reliable answer, and possibly ask a new question or check if it hasn't already be answered.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 19:12
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 19:51
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
Answer updated.
– jlliagre
Nov 29 '17 at 20:49
add a comment |
On the current Linux kernel with the ip
utility it is quite simple:
ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
This can be useful when you have a service that binds a port on an interface, and want to run a different program on the same port and network. I use it to enable both bind
and dnsmasq
to co-exist on the same server.
If you are using /etc/network/interfaces
to configure your interfaces, then update the lo
stanza to include:
up ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
add a comment |
On the current Linux kernel with the ip
utility it is quite simple:
ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
This can be useful when you have a service that binds a port on an interface, and want to run a different program on the same port and network. I use it to enable both bind
and dnsmasq
to co-exist on the same server.
If you are using /etc/network/interfaces
to configure your interfaces, then update the lo
stanza to include:
up ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
add a comment |
On the current Linux kernel with the ip
utility it is quite simple:
ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
This can be useful when you have a service that binds a port on an interface, and want to run a different program on the same port and network. I use it to enable both bind
and dnsmasq
to co-exist on the same server.
If you are using /etc/network/interfaces
to configure your interfaces, then update the lo
stanza to include:
up ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
On the current Linux kernel with the ip
utility it is quite simple:
ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
This can be useful when you have a service that binds a port on an interface, and want to run a different program on the same port and network. I use it to enable both bind
and dnsmasq
to co-exist on the same server.
If you are using /etc/network/interfaces
to configure your interfaces, then update the lo
stanza to include:
up ip addr add 10.0.1.8 dev lo
edited Nov 29 '17 at 23:56
answered Nov 29 '17 at 1:56
BillThor
7,6331325
7,6331325
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
add a comment |
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
Thanks. Will this persist reboots?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
@PeterSmit Unlikely.
– Kusalananda
Feb 3 at 8:34
add a comment |
As an alternative to using lo:0
, you can also use dummy
interfaces in Linux as in:
ifconfig dummy0 10.0.0.1/32
ifconfig dummy1 10.1.1.1/24
In addition to others answers:
- I do not recommend changing the usual/official loopback interface address as a lot of functionality depends on it;
- however, you can have/create several loopback/dummy interfaces - either lo:0 to lo:255 or dummyX interfaces;
- it has to be taken into account that lo:0 to lo:255 are aliases, whilst dummyX are full interfaces;
- moreover, one of the usual tactics in Linux for creating virtual IPs over BGP or OSPF is assigning them to loopback/dummy interfaces AND making pathways to them via routing;
- again, some daemons have problems with announcing addresses in aliases (for instance, quagga ) - so dummyX interfaces are advised in those cases;
- I would stress that without routing in the infrastructure, such addresses are only known/capable of being used in the server in question;
- assigning a private/public address to a loopback interface, without the proper routing can be a temporary low computing cost measure to blacklist communications temporarily with an IP address/network.
For more details, see for instance a BIND anycast setup tutorial done with Quagga/BIRD.
routing clues here: OSPF: Migrating Quagga to BIRD
P.S. Linux by default only creates dummy0 and dummy1 and has to be instructed to create a bigger number of dummy interfaces.
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
add a comment |
As an alternative to using lo:0
, you can also use dummy
interfaces in Linux as in:
ifconfig dummy0 10.0.0.1/32
ifconfig dummy1 10.1.1.1/24
In addition to others answers:
- I do not recommend changing the usual/official loopback interface address as a lot of functionality depends on it;
- however, you can have/create several loopback/dummy interfaces - either lo:0 to lo:255 or dummyX interfaces;
- it has to be taken into account that lo:0 to lo:255 are aliases, whilst dummyX are full interfaces;
- moreover, one of the usual tactics in Linux for creating virtual IPs over BGP or OSPF is assigning them to loopback/dummy interfaces AND making pathways to them via routing;
- again, some daemons have problems with announcing addresses in aliases (for instance, quagga ) - so dummyX interfaces are advised in those cases;
- I would stress that without routing in the infrastructure, such addresses are only known/capable of being used in the server in question;
- assigning a private/public address to a loopback interface, without the proper routing can be a temporary low computing cost measure to blacklist communications temporarily with an IP address/network.
For more details, see for instance a BIND anycast setup tutorial done with Quagga/BIRD.
routing clues here: OSPF: Migrating Quagga to BIRD
P.S. Linux by default only creates dummy0 and dummy1 and has to be instructed to create a bigger number of dummy interfaces.
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
add a comment |
As an alternative to using lo:0
, you can also use dummy
interfaces in Linux as in:
ifconfig dummy0 10.0.0.1/32
ifconfig dummy1 10.1.1.1/24
In addition to others answers:
- I do not recommend changing the usual/official loopback interface address as a lot of functionality depends on it;
- however, you can have/create several loopback/dummy interfaces - either lo:0 to lo:255 or dummyX interfaces;
- it has to be taken into account that lo:0 to lo:255 are aliases, whilst dummyX are full interfaces;
- moreover, one of the usual tactics in Linux for creating virtual IPs over BGP or OSPF is assigning them to loopback/dummy interfaces AND making pathways to them via routing;
- again, some daemons have problems with announcing addresses in aliases (for instance, quagga ) - so dummyX interfaces are advised in those cases;
- I would stress that without routing in the infrastructure, such addresses are only known/capable of being used in the server in question;
- assigning a private/public address to a loopback interface, without the proper routing can be a temporary low computing cost measure to blacklist communications temporarily with an IP address/network.
For more details, see for instance a BIND anycast setup tutorial done with Quagga/BIRD.
routing clues here: OSPF: Migrating Quagga to BIRD
P.S. Linux by default only creates dummy0 and dummy1 and has to be instructed to create a bigger number of dummy interfaces.
As an alternative to using lo:0
, you can also use dummy
interfaces in Linux as in:
ifconfig dummy0 10.0.0.1/32
ifconfig dummy1 10.1.1.1/24
In addition to others answers:
- I do not recommend changing the usual/official loopback interface address as a lot of functionality depends on it;
- however, you can have/create several loopback/dummy interfaces - either lo:0 to lo:255 or dummyX interfaces;
- it has to be taken into account that lo:0 to lo:255 are aliases, whilst dummyX are full interfaces;
- moreover, one of the usual tactics in Linux for creating virtual IPs over BGP or OSPF is assigning them to loopback/dummy interfaces AND making pathways to them via routing;
- again, some daemons have problems with announcing addresses in aliases (for instance, quagga ) - so dummyX interfaces are advised in those cases;
- I would stress that without routing in the infrastructure, such addresses are only known/capable of being used in the server in question;
- assigning a private/public address to a loopback interface, without the proper routing can be a temporary low computing cost measure to blacklist communications temporarily with an IP address/network.
For more details, see for instance a BIND anycast setup tutorial done with Quagga/BIRD.
routing clues here: OSPF: Migrating Quagga to BIRD
P.S. Linux by default only creates dummy0 and dummy1 and has to be instructed to create a bigger number of dummy interfaces.
edited Dec 15 at 23:23
answered Nov 28 '17 at 21:13
Rui F Ribeiro
38.9k1479129
38.9k1479129
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
add a comment |
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
1
1
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
I'm absolutely going to use this with (static) routing. Is there any real difference between dummy and loopback interfaces?
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:03
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
@PeterSmit assigning vips to the loopback with be dealing with aliases of an interface, while dummy are full interfaces on their own right. there were issues using interface aliases with quagga...and I do not recommend changing lo . It also happens often you can/have to associate fw rules w/ an actual interface and not an alias.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Nov 29 '17 at 22:09
add a comment |
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you use an IP that is ever going to be accessed by your system, any data that it tries to send there will be redirected to the local system instead, which can cause all kinds of odd networking issues. This means in particular that you can't safely use anything outside of the following ranges:
127.0.0.0/8
192.0.2.0/24
198.51.100.0/24
203.0.113.0/24
240.0.0.0/4
With the possible exception of any of the following dependent on how your other network interfaces are configured:
10.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
169.254.0.0/16
This is a case where RFC 1925, section 2, item 3 applies.
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
add a comment |
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you use an IP that is ever going to be accessed by your system, any data that it tries to send there will be redirected to the local system instead, which can cause all kinds of odd networking issues. This means in particular that you can't safely use anything outside of the following ranges:
127.0.0.0/8
192.0.2.0/24
198.51.100.0/24
203.0.113.0/24
240.0.0.0/4
With the possible exception of any of the following dependent on how your other network interfaces are configured:
10.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
169.254.0.0/16
This is a case where RFC 1925, section 2, item 3 applies.
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
add a comment |
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you use an IP that is ever going to be accessed by your system, any data that it tries to send there will be redirected to the local system instead, which can cause all kinds of odd networking issues. This means in particular that you can't safely use anything outside of the following ranges:
127.0.0.0/8
192.0.2.0/24
198.51.100.0/24
203.0.113.0/24
240.0.0.0/4
With the possible exception of any of the following dependent on how your other network interfaces are configured:
10.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
169.254.0.0/16
This is a case where RFC 1925, section 2, item 3 applies.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you use an IP that is ever going to be accessed by your system, any data that it tries to send there will be redirected to the local system instead, which can cause all kinds of odd networking issues. This means in particular that you can't safely use anything outside of the following ranges:
127.0.0.0/8
192.0.2.0/24
198.51.100.0/24
203.0.113.0/24
240.0.0.0/4
With the possible exception of any of the following dependent on how your other network interfaces are configured:
10.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
169.254.0.0/16
This is a case where RFC 1925, section 2, item 3 applies.
answered Nov 28 '17 at 20:40
Austin Hemmelgarn
5,98111016
5,98111016
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
add a comment |
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
Actually, there are more ranges. In my case, it would be in the 100.64.0.0/10 range (Carrier Grade NAT)
– Peter Smit
Nov 29 '17 at 17:02
1
1
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
There may be more, but most of them are not widely used on client systems (I think the CGN range probably fits that), or they have ill-defined uses that many people may not understand (like 198.18.0.0/15, used for benchmarking), and I wanted to avoid saying something that might not be reasonably safe was in fact safe.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Nov 29 '17 at 17:48
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407494%2fis-it-possible-to-put-a-real-ip-on-a-loopback-device%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Yes, of course.
– Ipor Sircer
Nov 28 '17 at 12:35
3
... a danger is of course that you forget this IP is there and then you have head-scratching networking issues as the packets don't go to the expected public IP address ...
– thrig
Nov 28 '17 at 13:40