On Feb 23, Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
disable rp_filter.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Paul Hampson wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:13:34AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
The rp_filter will often
Hi,
Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
disable rp_filter. So add some rules to the firewall make sure nothing
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
disable rp_filter. So add some rules to the firewall make sure nothing gets
into 127.0.0.0/8 unless it is a local packet.
So, by this implication, if I use arping and pretend
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:13:34AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
So, by this implication, if I use arping and pretend to be 127.0.0.1
to another host, that host will try to ping the network if I ping 127.0.0.1
on the target host?
no, there are some obvious illegal addresses excluded.
Greetings
Bernd
--
To
Am 2005-02-19 10:13:42, schrieb Junichi Uekawa:
Hi
Do you mean:
1. on linux there is a principal IP address that is assigned to a
node regardless of NIC due to the implementation of ARP etc.
2. on linux there is some magic IP *number* that is assigned to a
node; and IP
Hi
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
machine
Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
implementation have found), though it's a good approximation.
Indeed. For Linux, nodes have IP *numbers* which are all equal,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
machine
Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
implementation have found), though it's a good approximation.
This portion is
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Blars Blarson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
machine
Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
implementation have found),
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:21:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Every machine with more than one interface has at least two hostnames:
localhost on network 127 and something else on the external networks.
Nitpicking: every machine have exactly one hostname, that is contained
in
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 03:01:26PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
However, now we've suddenly discovered that _other_ programs get confused by
this! In particular, if you use an NFSv4-patched mount, it does a
gethostname()
Current d-i writes the following line to the beginning of /etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1localhost.localdomain localhost
Traditionally, this confuses some programs; at least pvm used to have
problems with this, and I'm fairly sure cfengine2 doesn't like it either, so
we've changed to
127.0.0.1
On Feb 13, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, one program has to be buggy here, but which? :-)
The first ones. 127.0.0.1 IS localhost.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:30:11 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Current d-i writes the following line to the beginning of /etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1localhost.localdomain localhost
This is correct.
Traditionally, this confuses some programs; at least pvm used to have
problems with this,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
However, now we've suddenly discovered that _other_ programs get confused by
this! In particular, if you use an NFSv4-patched mount, it does a
gethostname() and resolves that, which returns 127.0.0.1, which in turn makes
it
Mark Brown writes:
...NIS needs to hand out the IP address of the machine...
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every machine
with one or more external interfaces has at least two: 127.0.0.1 for the
loopback interface and one for each external interface.
Resolving
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Resolving the hostname is a standard method for obtaining an IP address
for the machine
And pretty broken in a lot of the cases :) It is much better to retrieve
the local current IP address of the connection you are going to send the ip
(if it is needed).
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:21:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Mark Brown writes:
...NIS needs to hand out the IP address of the machine...
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every machine
Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:21:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Mark Brown writes:
...NIS needs to hand out the IP address of the machine...
Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every machine
Actually, that's not quite the
20 matches
Mail list logo
