From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 20:46:08 CEST
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 05:19:04PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> Michele Andreoli a écrit :
>
> > Usually?! I can't imagine different interfaces with the same address.
> > What the scope?
>
> I have an example. It is taken from the plip howto. In this example, the 2
> interfaces haven't really the same address, but one address can be routed
> to 2 different interfaces, depending wether it comes from the other
> computer or from the localhost.
>
> suppose you have 2 computers, here and there.
> you issued
> ifconfig plip0 here pointtopoint there up
> so the address of plip interface is here.
> It is therefore recommended to issue a
> route add -host here lo.
> so the here address is also associated to lo... It is quite natural, but...
> a little strange.
>
The command
# route add -host here lo
force the route to be associated with the specified device (in this
case "lo", loopback), as the kernel will otherwise try to
determine the device (using euristic?), finding plip0.
I think, this do not make difference, because "here" is in this case
logically the same as 127.0.0.1. Logically, not physically.
Do you know other examples, not involving the special loopback device?
I noticed that: if I now do "ifconfig plip down" and "ping here",
the kernel use "lo"; otherwise, use plip0 anycase (I check the
file /proc/net/dev for that).
Is is important the order which I active the two interface?
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET