Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Wikipedia has this to say about the loopback address

Various IETF standards reserve the IPv4 address block 127/8 (from which 127.0.0.1 is most commonly used), the IPv6 address ::1, and the name localhost for this purpose.

So any address in the 127.255.255.255 subnet should comply? However OS-X (10.8.5) only responds to pings on 127.0.0.1

$ ping 127.0.0.1
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.050 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.077 ms
^C

$ ping 127.1.2.3
PING 127.1.2.3 (127.1.2.3): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
^C

Linux (an old Ubuntu 10.04 VM) responds from the supplied address

$ ping 127.1.2.3
PING 127.1.2.3 (127.1.2.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.1.2.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
64 bytes from 127.1.2.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.022 ms
^C

While Windows (XP) responds always from 127.0.0.1

C:\>ping 127.1.2.3

Pinging 127.1.2.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128

Is OS-X not conforming to the standards here? What about XP?

share|improve this question
    
Seems this is related superuser.com/q/458875/8987 and indicates that OS-X is not conforming - so what about XP? – Peter Gibson Feb 13 '14 at 23:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.