virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one
pecularity I have failed to pinpoint: When launching processes
with some network interaction, like
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:56 -0400
Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some qjails,
8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on 10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one pecularity I
have failed to pinpoint: When launching processes with some network
interaction, like
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one
pecularity I have failed to pinpoint: When launching
-rantfinet
DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire
default192.168.0.1UGS 00em0
10.0.4.0/24link#6 U 00 epair1
10.0.4.1 link#6 UHS 00lo0
10.0.4.3
Hi!
On 8.0-BETA4 gate I see than in routing table are number of routes
(link# records) through lo0 for some local addresses:
hole netstat -rnfinet | grep lo0
127.0.0.1 link#7 UH 030764lo0
172.22.254.10 link#7 UHS 00lo0
Sergey Listopad wrote:
Hi!
On 8.0-BETA4 gate I see than in routing table are number of routes
(link# records) through lo0 for some local addresses:
hole netstat -rnfinet | grep lo0
127.0.0.1 link#7 UH 030764lo0
172.22.254.10 link#7 UHS
Hi,
I was searching why ports/net/p5-Net-Interface was not working as
expected and found some reasons. Most of them I can answer by implementing
some test code as attached, but now I'm wondering why em0 is shown twice
and lo0 is not included.
The same situation on another machine ..
--- BEGIN
Hi (resend because attachment forgotten ...),
I was searching why ports/net/p5-Net-Interface was not working as
expected and found some reasons. Most of them I can answer by implementing
some test code as attached, but now I'm wondering why em0 is shown twice
and lo0 is not included.
The same
One of my FreeBSD machines acts as a router, providing shared internet
access via ipfw/natd to the local network. Recently I've been getting
a lot of these in the logs:
arp: 192.168.1.1 is on lo0 but got reply from (someEthernetAddress) on xl1
xl1 is my Internet-facing interface. The address
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Modulok
Sent: Monday, 29 October 2007 4:57 p.m.
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: arp: 192.168.1.1 is on lo0 but got reply from...
One of my FreeBSD machines acts as a router, providing shared internet
access via ipfw
Hello everyone,
I'm trying to get past a sticky routing situation by running routed on
all of my machines in my server cluster. I've been instructed by
several sources of authority that the best solution for a multi-homed
ip address scenario is bind the ip addresses to the loopback device and
Hi list,
Just want to make sure this is not a FreeBSD issue:
Is anyone using tcpflow to sniff packets on loopback interface? When I
try
# tcpflow -c -v -i lo0
(-v to get all possible debug messages)
and then ping localhost for example, I always get:
tcpflow[31634]: warning: received non
I needed to put an alias on lo0 for 127.0.0.2 and I made the
mistake of assuming this would work like any other interface
but that isn't the case.
ifconfig inet lo0 127.0.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 alias
results in an ip that I can ping but when I startup dnscache
and ask it to listen
On 2002-10-28 23:35, adrian kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand about the interface lo0
If it is for loopback, why I got the following from
ipfw -a list
but I didn't ping 127.0.0.1
A network interface doesn't exist solely for the purpose of being able
to run ping on it. Other
15 matches
Mail list logo
