Talk:Localhost/Archive 1

SetCookie on Localhost with PHP and Apache
Well, it might have to do something with weariness since I just finished proxy configuration for our network (and still do not understand why computers in another domain are fetching OUR wpad.dat) ... but I do not understand, what has the PHP function SetCookie to do with encyclopaedical article about localhost? Does Wikipedia supply PHP-Manual? What will be next, shouldn't we mention that there is no way to capture packets on local loopbac k in SunOS with Ethereal? --Kavol 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Numbered list item
 * 2) Numbered list item


 * SetCookie is obviously a function that writes a cookie to your computer, maybe this person was having trouble with SetCookie on their server.
 * Also, some people think this is a support talk, so for those of you who need help with any PHP-related queries, please use the the PHP Manual, [www.php.net/manual]. Thanks. Teckie 20:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

sum  This is my page

Humor again
I am removing the humor section as I do not believe it is relevant encyclopedic content. If you disagree, please discuss it here instead of reverting. -- J  Morgan (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time for some real jokes? Like, putting 127.0.0.1 in someones blacklist? - Face 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they may fit in, under a Cultural References section. One of my favs (likely fake but fun anyway). &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

... September 25, 2006 by TrueRock2 Oops - I just finished putting the humor/myth content back into the article. I was so shocked to not see it in the article I assumed it was some type of mistake. Regardless, I think you are going to have trouble divorcing reality from the article. If there is just one piece of info about 127.0.0.1 that is part of our universal knowledge it is this story/prank. My expectation of a Wikipedia article is to see every piece of information on a topic - especially information that would be known by any knowledgeable and educated individual.

127.0.0.1 is maybe the _only_ IP-address with some cultural background so I _demand_ bringing the insider-jokes back. Thats like writing an article about Jerry Lewis and refusing to point out his humor because it is a serious article. Crass Spektakel 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you all have convinced me that there should be some mention of the cultural meaning of 127.0.0.1. When I removed the humor section, it was a full 41% of the article (by word count, 251 out of 608 in MS Word).  I still think that would be excessive.  On another note, I don't object to a humorous example, but I also don't think this page should become a list of jokes.  My suggestion is now to keep the section (as of edit 85687792), and ensure that the technical description of 127.0.0.1 remains the primary topic -- J  Morgan (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Humor section
The humor section (or at the very least, the jokes at the top of it) isn't appropriate for a non-humor-related encyclopedia article. Deleting the jokes.

- Matthew0028 05:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
 * "127.0.0.1? Nice FTP site, but I already have that stuff."
 * "127.0.0.1, sweet, 127.0.0.1" (as in "Home, sweet home").

I'll stick that in WP:BJAODN. I think it's roaringly funny (but then, does anyone else?)~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kind of related but I removed "All of which are fun" from the end of the urban legends bit. POV - Sas

Urban Legends
Why is the Urban Legends section flagged as not citing its sources? It's about urban legends, what sources could be cited? I also think this section has no use or bearing on an encyclopedic article about localhost, but I'll leave that up to you. dimo414 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not really sure what references you'd cite for an urban legend. And I'd have to disagree on the question of whether or not that section should be included. See "Humor again" for some reasons why. I'd say that localhost actually has more SOCIAL relevance than it does TECHNICAL relevance. Baggend 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

127.0.0.1 Security : Apache Servers
It is possible to block access to your server, in this case localhost (i.e. 127.0.0.1) in quite a simple manner, according to the concise, comprehensive overview i referenced on this topic. Though i knew it was possible, i wasn't quite sure of the capacity, nor precisely the correct syntax.

I wanted to find a way to block media from IP's other than localhost during development. (though i do not find them be malicious, it might illustrate better the meaning of "media from IP's other than 127.0.0.1-- the Syndicated content one might acquire from Google&reg; AdSense&trade;, or Yahoo! MyWeb Badge, for example.) Whatever the purpose might be for "blocking" the outside sources, i've copied here the text of a fine resource i found at javascriptkit.com (a credible resource, IMHO): 

Blocking users by IP
order allow,deny deny from 123.45.6.7 deny from 012.34.5. allow from all You can deny access based upon IP address or an IP block. The above blocks access to the site from 123.45.6.7, and from any sub domain under the IP block 012.34.5. (012.34.5.1, 012.34.5.2, 012.34.5.3, etc.)[...]&dagger; You can also set an option for deny from all ,[or] allow or deny by domain name rather than IP address ( allow from .javascriptkit.com [...]) &dagger;Original content snipped, not altered otherwise by this Wikipedia User Blocking Users by IP: Comprehensive guide to .htaccess. Copyright © 1997-2007 JavaScript Kit. Available at: http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess5.shtml. Accessed: Apr-30, 2007. Jsabarese 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why 127
Does anyone know why specifically 127.0.0.1 is the address of the local machine?


 * What&#8217;s so special about 127?


 * I would have thought 0.0.0.1 for example would have been the most logical choice or maybe even 1.0.0.0


 * Note that 127 in binary is 01111111... maybe it's got something vaguely to do with that?


 * Quite simply, yes. The entire loopback address in binary is 01111111.00000000.00000000.00000001 --Ihope127 18:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To answer those questions: In the old Classful network structure, 127.0.0.0/8 was the last (highest possible) class A network. It was and still is common to use border elements from a set for special purpose.  Any other class A network, like 100.0.0.0/8 would have been arbitrary and make less sense.  Also, the network 0.0.0.0/8 has already a different purpose and meaning so this is probably the reason why 127.0.0.0/8 was chosen. 83.79.34.243 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

-- --

theres no way this is differnt for anyone else right the local host is always that right o.O


 * just had an argument with a n00b and hes telling me im wrong and his local host always changes >.>;;


 * message me on <> about this k?


 * just a word of caution, you might want to delete your email address from here. i would do it for you but i dont know if you arer ok with putting your email out there. this is wikipedia, but i bet there are still sum people out here who would abuse having some random person's email address. Jds10912 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As he put his email adress there to be contacted I doubt that he is checking up on this page. Deleted the address... (reverting is possible anyway)

Doesn't make sense!
It doesn't make any sense! Why the dollar sign?137.240.136.86 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In php the dollar sign indicates a variable see Dollar sign. --Salix alba (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference
Can a computer distinguish between a loopback at 127.0.0.1 and, say 127.5.5.5? For example, is it possible to have two different local webservers at these addresses?--Abdull 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. They're two distinct addresses. Keep in mind that localhost is only really "special" because of the default use of it versus other IP's. But just as you could have a single network device with 3 different IPs, you can have a single localhost with 3 different IPs. It's just that in the case of 127.0.0.0/8 you don't have to do any extra work, whereas with, for example, 10.0.0.0/8 you'd have to manually set up those additional IPs. Note, however, that this distinction could be broken by sloppy code. For example, if you have a configuration directive which takes an IP address as an argument, but you only use that IP to figure out which INTERFACE to listen on, then this wouldn't work. Baggend (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref 1 in German
Reference #1 is in German and should be removed. 12.155.246.10 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Being in a foreign langauge is not in itself a reason for any reference to be removed. The encyclopedia is in English, true, but it may reference foreign language sources when the source gives appropriate information. —Lowellian (reply) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::1/128 -- what about ::1?
I've always known IPv6 localhost as ::1, what's the difference? Oh, and it would be nice if ::1 and ::1/128 could redirect here, but it seems the software doesn't agree. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel-Dane (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 128 is for IPv6 what 32 is for IPv4, it means "all 128 bits". Simpler IPv4 example, 127.0.0.1/32 means 127.0.0.1, while 127.0.0.1/31 means 127.0.0.1 or 127.0.0.0. The article mentions 127.0.0.0/8, that's any IPv4 starting with 127 (32-8=24 free bits). --212.82.251.211 (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Default content on Windows operating systems
In Windows, the default hosts file is often blank or it contains (inactive) comment lines followed by IPv4 or IPv6 localhost entries.

127.0.0.1      localhost ::1            localhost

An example can be found at http://vlaurie.com/computers2/Articles/hosts.htm.

Trivia
So there should be a trivia section, about this.

I bet it was canonical to see the movie 2012's final scene, where the date after everything said 1/27/0001. I immediately thought of this. Rjsec4ever (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Localhost undefined
Regret the definition of "localhost" is gibberish.

There must be context.

I am at a computer at my home or office. I am on-line, which means I am talking to another computer in another place. Which of these is the "localhost" - ? Either of them?

I am trying to import a file into phplist. In the Mysql or php program (are they deliberately muddled?) which is on-line, the default import window that opens is to my personal machine, as I see my root directory C:\ I am told I am using the "localhost". If this is true, then I am ftp-ing (uploading) my local file to my server, where it will be imported into phplist. If this were true, then the file would be uploaded and then imported. Instead, I jam the program. Which means phplist is not looking in the right place, cannot find my file and so is merely running the clock out.

Which would indicate that I first need to upload my local file to my server and then fetch it with the import feature of phplist. Which means I need to somehow spin out of the default C:\ directory and and "be online", but from the window that opens you cannot go further than the local network. I.e., not on-line.

And every one of you is laughing now. This is why it is so hard to use computers. Dave of Maryland (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Localhost undefined
Regret the definition of "localhost" is gibberish.

There must be context.

I am at a computer at my home or office. I am on-line, which means I am talking to another computer in another place. Which of these is the "localhost" - ? Either of them?

I am trying to import a file into phplist. In the Mysql or php program (are they deliberately muddled?) which is on-line, the default import window that opens is to my personal machine, as I see my root directory C:\ I am told I am using the "localhost". If this is true, then I am ftp-ing (uploading) my local file to my server, where it will be imported into phplist. If this were true, then the file would be uploaded and then imported. Instead, I jam the program. Which means phplist is not looking in the right place, cannot find my file and so is merely running the clock out.

Which would indicate that I first need to upload my local file to my server and then fetch it with the import feature of phplist. Which means I need to somehow spin out of the default C:\ directory and and "be online", but from the window that opens you cannot go further than the local network. I.e., not on-line.

And every one of you is laughing now. This is why it is so hard to use computers. Dave of Maryland (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

General Revision -- 4/25/2013
Much of the information in this article was duplicated by the "Virtual network interface" section of the Loopback article. Having it in two places creates a maintenance headache, so I boldly thought about where it really ought to be — here, there, or in a new article with a title like maybe "Loopback interface" — and came to the conclusion that this actually is that article, it's just titled localhost because that's the name most commonly used for the loopback interface.

So I recast that section of the Loopback article as a summary of this one, and set about merging in any unique information from it:
 * I specifically did not reintroduce the erroneous suggestion that one can test the TCP/IP stack by pinging  or   — my understanding is that ping uses little if any of that stack.
 * I did add in the paragraph about martian packets.

As a professional writer and editor, I also thought this page was in need of some reorganization and clarification, so I boldly did that as well:
 * I tried to organize the information into sections of increasing technical complexity, with a very general lede followed by a "How it's done" section that will hopefully be clear to networking novices.
 * I specifically clarified that 127.0.0.0/8 doesn't mean 127.0.0.1 through 127.0.0.8!
 * I clarified that services can respond differently to specific IPv4 loopback addresses.
 * I tried to cite the current/most recent versions of the relevant IETF standards (RFCs), referring to others only for historical purposes. I won't be surprised if true experts might be able to improve on my efforts. In particular, I corrected the implication that ICANN/IANA at one point had a say in the assignment of loopback addresses. IANA lists them, with itself as the owner, because the IETF requires it to. They were originally and have always been reserved by the IETF, and no other organization has ever had the authority to change them.

I realize neither article actually said or implied that 127.0.0.0/8 includes only 127.0.0.1 through 127.0.0.8, but I think it needed to be clarified. My main reason was that somebody set up redirects to this article from those eight IP addresses (and added each of them to the Internet Protocol addresses category), probably thinking that's what 127.0.0.0/8 means. Another made that claim toward the top of this talk page. I've also been able to find external web pages that claim localhost is synonymous with those eight IP addresses, so I think we need to do what we can to clarify that misconception here.

I might also initiate a reconsideration of all IP Address redirects to this article other than 127.0.0.0, 127.0.0.1, and 127.1 (the latter serves to alert readers of the list to the fact that loopback addresses of that form are permissible), on the grounds that nobody is apt to deliberately search for any of the others, and I see no justification for redirecting only a handful of the millions of other valid loopback addresses. The few hits they are getting probably all come from the Internet Protocol addresses category page, where people see them and wonder what the heck. To test that theory, I have removed the others from that category to see if their hits fall to zero. I also added a generic 127.x.x.x redirect that will now show up on that list. Joeldbenson (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. well done.--Salix (talk): 06:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

General Revision -- 4/25/2013
Much of the information in this article was duplicated by the "Virtual network interface" section of the Loopback article. Having it in two places creates a maintenance headache, so I boldly thought about where it really ought to be — here, there, or in a new article with a title like maybe "Loopback interface" — and came to the conclusion that this actually is that article, it's just titled localhost because that's the name most commonly used for the loopback interface.

So I recast that section of the Loopback article as a summary of this one, and set about merging in any unique information from it:
 * I specifically did not reintroduce the erroneous suggestion that one can test the TCP/IP stack by pinging  or   — my understanding is that ping uses little if any of that stack.
 * I did add in the paragraph about martian packets.

As a professional writer and editor, I also thought this page was in need of some reorganization and clarification, so I boldly did that as well:
 * I tried to organize the information into sections of increasing technical complexity, with a very general lede followed by a "How it's done" section that will hopefully be clear to networking novices.
 * I specifically clarified that 127.0.0.0/8 doesn't mean 127.0.0.1 through 127.0.0.8!
 * I clarified that services can respond differently to specific IPv4 loopback addresses.
 * I tried to cite the current/most recent versions of the relevant IETF standards (RFCs), referring to others only for historical purposes. I won't be surprised if true experts might be able to improve on my efforts. In particular, I corrected the implication that ICANN/IANA at one point had a say in the assignment of loopback addresses. IANA lists them, with itself as the owner, because the IETF requires it to. They were originally and have always been reserved by the IETF, and no other organization has ever had the authority to change them.

I realize neither article actually said or implied that 127.0.0.0/8 includes only 127.0.0.1 through 127.0.0.8, but I think it needed to be clarified. My main reason was that somebody set up redirects to this article from those eight IP addresses (and added each of them to the Internet Protocol addresses category), probably thinking that's what 127.0.0.0/8 means. Another made that claim toward the top of this talk page. I've also been able to find external web pages that claim localhost is synonymous with those eight IP addresses, so I think we need to do what we can to clarify that misconception here.

I might also initiate a reconsideration of all IP Address redirects to this article other than 127.0.0.0, 127.0.0.1, and 127.1 (the latter serves to alert readers of the list to the fact that loopback addresses of that form are permissible), on the grounds that nobody is apt to deliberately search for any of the others, and I see no justification for redirecting only a handful of the millions of other valid loopback addresses. The few hits they are getting probably all come from the Internet Protocol addresses category page, where people see them and wonder what the heck. To test that theory, I have removed the others from that category to see if their hits fall to zero. I also added a generic 127.x.x.x redirect that will now show up on that list. Joeldbenson (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. well done.--Salix (talk): 06:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Second-level localhost
The statement seems to be false — both localhost.com and localhost.net are currently (August 2014) registered and point to active websites. ï¿½ (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * DNS registrars are precluded from delegating domain names that include localhost, e.g., localhost.com, in order to avoid the confusion that would result if a DNS lookup appended a specified search domain.

Additional Citations ?
The article is marked "needs additional citations for verification." Is this still valid? if so where? It is chocked full of references now. Jimwelch (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Attacks from localhost
I'm very new to making Wikipedia edits, so I'm not sure if this would be appropriate, but...

I've noticed a significant number of attacks from computers who've named themselves LOCALHOST (no IP recorded in event viewer). This might fool an inexperienced administrator or user into thinking the traffic is safe or just confuse the heck out of them, especially if they ping it and get an instant response from 127.0.0.1.

Is there any way to work this into the article? I haven't found any information about it on the web(though I've tried), so I couldn't reference anything.

That is a spoofing method, the source ip address 127.0.0.x is faked , in fact an attack script could use any source ip address if it is not expect a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.43.32.32 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.64.134 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of localhost
Can someone put something about what this is useful for? Thanks! Mark Richards 19:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Suppose you have an HTTP server on your computer. If you want to check up on it you just type http://localhost/ and you'll be there :-) You can also ping 127.0.0.1 if you need to be absolutely sure that your computer exists. --Ihope127 18:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

One use of localhost is in connection scripts where a SQL server may reside on the same system that is trying to connect to it. A PHP connection script example:

$hostname = "localhost";

$database = "DatabaseName";

$username = "root";

$password = "0112454901"; sfgsfg$connectString = mysql_pconnect($hostname, $username, $password) or trigger_error(mysql_error,E_USER_ERROR);

Rather than specifiying the IP address of the server in the script, using localhost is more dynamic since it will ALWAYS refer to the local machine even if you change the IP.


 * Well, not really ALWAYS. localhost is in the etc/hosts file. In theory, localhost could be made to point to any IP you'd like. But the two alternatives (using localhost or using 127.0.0.1) are about equivalent because to get either of them to no longer work would require manual intervention on the part of the user. Either to change the hosts file or to disable the loopback interface. Baggend 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ping
Another use the localhost reference is to test a Network Interface Card or NIC or your TCP/IP stack. A command line example:

Ping localhost

The result is pinging yourself. If no response is received there is a problem on the local machine not the network you may be working with. If you were to talk to yourself you would be considered a schizophrenic, with your comptuer on the other hand it may be desirable.

Hope these help!

Cheers,

Michael Andrade 16:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually it won't test your NIC. 127.0.0.1 is entirely implemented in software.
 * Also, what's 127.0.0.2 etc. for? Jibjibjib 07:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 127.0.0.2-8 are also reserved for loopback, it says so in the article. --Ifrit 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but is there a case where you'd want to use 127.0.0.2 (or another loopback IP) instead of 127.0.0.1? What was the logic of reserving a whole /8 block in IPv4, as opposed to the single address in IPv6? (Possible explanation: testing that a server only responds to requests from (a) certain IP(s), without needing WAN requests.)


 * Not sure about others, but I use it to placate a piece of software with an annoying license manager. It wants a fixed IP address that always points to my computer, but it won't use 127.0.0.1.  My real IP address changes when I go from one network to another, so I just use 127.0.0.2. :-)  --Reuben 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can also see reasons why a whole network can be useful, instead of a single IP. The reason why it's such a large network is probably that back in the time, plenty of IP addresses were available and nobody thought that we might be starving on IP addresses 30 years later. 83.79.34.243 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found that the entire 127.x.x.x loops back (and the only thing in the hosts file is 127.0.0.1) . This could just be Windows specific and I was wondering if anyone could quote a source that specifically specifies 127.x.x.x as loop back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.149.39 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct ... though I can't cite an on-line source. You can indeed use any address in the 127.0.0.0 network space.  Yes the host file provides a default 127.0.0.1 localloop config but even that isn't cast in stone.  I'd change the article but I expect someone would want a citation.  :?  -Ikester (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ping is ICMP, which does not use TCP at all! So, it is wrong to say it will test the TCP/IP stack of whatever. Fabiovh (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, it is correct usage. The term TCP/IP is a common name, for historical reasons, of the entire Internet Protocol suite. It doesn't just signify TCP. It's perhaps confusing to some but that's the traditional usage. See the TCP/IP model article. Kbrose (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * taken, but can you guarantee that it tests the stack for all operating systems? or does it refer to a specific one? Fabiovh (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IPv6 localhost address inconsistency
This page says that IPv6 localhost is limited to ::1. Page Multicast_address says that all IPv6 addresses that start with ffx1::/16 represent a loopback address. Which one is correct? (i.e. wouldn't ::1 plus all ffx1::/16 be loopback addresses?) Alexis Wilke (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Typo
I think there's a typo in the first sentence. In computer networking, localhost is a hostname that means this computer and may be used... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.231.123.2 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let 'localhost' be localhost
Does the Article already consider the Internet Draft Let 'localhost' be localhost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.193.97.42 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As it is still an internet draft, the article should not consider its contents, as it has no official status. The best that it can do ATM is to mention that the draft (a.k.a. proposal) exists. RogierA7 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Second-level localhost
The statement seems to be false — both localhost.com and localhost.net are currently (August 2014) registered and point to active websites. ï¿½ (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * DNS registrars are precluded from delegating domain names that include localhost, e.g., localhost.com, in order to avoid the confusion that would result if a DNS lookup appended a specified search domain.


 * I concur. I tried whois on both those domain names and both are registered (May 11, 2016). Alexis Wilke (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According to RFC 6761, anything using the top-level domain 'localhost' is reserved; anything else that includes localhost is not mentioned. So the statement in the article is incorrect, and the article needs to be fixed (unless somebody can come up with a better source of course. Anybody ??). RogierA7 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ RogierA7 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)