On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:25:33PM -0500, Nick Rogness wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
> >
> > AFAIK, the route to get from 1 interface to the other is not
> > through the lo0. I'm not sure if the kernel sends these packets
> > across lo0 (internally) or not. But the routing table would
> > suggest not.
>
> It sure looks like they do. I checked before suggesting this.
>
> $ ifconfig dc0
> dc0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 192.168.64.60 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.64.255
> inet6 fe80::2c0:f0ff:fe5a:6c0a%dc0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> inet 192.168.64.61 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.64.61
> ether 00:c0:f0:5a:6c:0a
> media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP)
> status: active
> $telnet -s 192.168.64.60 192.168.64.61
> Trying 192.168.64.61...
> telnet: connect to address 192.168.64.61: Connection refused
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
>
> And I was sniffing the loopback when I did this,
>
> # tcpdump -n -ilo0
> tcpdump: listening on lo0
> 20:02:34.300094 192.168.64.60.1979 > 192.168.64.61.23: S
> 2453490862:2453490862(0) win 65535 <mss 16344,nop,wscale
> 1,nop,nop,timestamp 11409532 0> (DF) [tos 0x10]
> 20:02:34.300138 192.168.64.61.23 > 192.168.64.60.1979: R 0:0(0) ack
> 2453490863 win 0
>
> I also put in some ipfw(8) 'count' rules like,
>
> # ipfw add count ip from 192.168.64.60 to 192.168.64.61 out via lo0
>
> And they were hit by these packets.
WOW, that's interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
Nick Rogness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Don't mind me...I'm just sniffing your packets
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
