On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > 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.
.. at least, not when using ppp(8) That's what I get for ASSuming :) > 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 :( Glad to hear it's working anyway, on getting back from a few days away. cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ 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"
