Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.advocacy:531 comp.unix.bsd:13353 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!decwrl!nic.hookup.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!giant!a09878 From: a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Is this a bug in Net2 IP code? Date: 2 Feb 94 20:29:05 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! Communications Corp Lines: 25 Message-ID: <a09878.760220945@giant> References: <2ile8a$rh1@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <a09878.760154448@giant> <2inv6s$k1u@mail.fwi.uva.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: giant.rsoft.bc.ca casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes: >It is a bug somewhere in the networking code. It's not an >administrative mistake. >For ethernet interfaces an ``ifconfig <if> inet <addr> netmask <mask>'' >results in a route to the *net* ``<addr> & <mask>''. >For the loopback interface this results in a route to *host* 127.0.0.1. >If there are no special checks on the loopback net, all packets >destined for 127.0.0.2 are going to be put out on the ethernet, >provided there is a default route. You're right, actually; this looks like a bug to me too. Now that I look more closely at my system, I find that an attempt to ping 127.0.0.2 produces "no route to host" (I don't have a default route set). Shouldn't the ifconfig produce a route to the loopback interface for all of 127.0.0.0, given a netmask of 0xff000000, rather than just a route to 127.0.0.1? cjs -- Curt Sampson a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca Fluor Daniel 604 691 5458 1444 Alberni Street Vanouver, B.C., V6G 2Z4 "Small cows work best." --Ty Bower