Ian Smith <nimnet.asn.au!smi...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > Why would a local interface, reported as up in ifconfig, not respond > > to a ping of its own IP address? The tun0 reported below doesn't, ... > > $ ifconfig -a ... > > tun0: flags=8051<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1412 > > inet6 fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe28:ad4f%tun0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 > > inet ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 --> ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 netmask 0xffffffff > > Opened by PID 24635 > > I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I've never seen a point to > point interface use the same IP address on both ends of its link before.
It turns out to be normal -- or at least tolerable -- for a tun(4) interface used by vpnc to have the same IP address at both ends. It started working when I added NAT Traversal Mode cisco-udp to vpnc.conf. (Presumably not all configurations of the Cisco 3000 will need that, else it would be the default, but it seems to be correct for the one involved here.) I never did figure out why that kept the interface from responding to a ping of its own address :( _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
