Guy Helmer wrote:
> My previous understanding was that RFC 3927 did not allow transmitting
> datagrams involving the 169.254.0.0/16 link-local prefix; now that I've
> looked over the RFC more closely, I'm not sure that is the case.
>
> I have cc'ed Bruce Simpson on this message in hopes that he
> > > One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't"
> > > respond to pings
> > > when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but
> > > it won't
> > > respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address
> > > like
> > > 169.254.1.2 and it "would"
> > One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't"
> > respond to pings
> > when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but
> > it won't
> > respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address
> > like
> > 169.254.1.2 and it "would" respond to pi
On 06/09/2010 08:28, Reko Turja wrote:
>> One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't"
>> respond to pings
>> when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but it
>> won't
>> respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address like
>> 169.254.1.2 an
On 06/09/2010 08:28 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't"
respond to pings
when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but it
won't
respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address like
169.254.1.2 and it "would"
One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't"
respond to pings
when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but
it won't
respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address
like
169.254.1.2 and it "would" respond to pings.
Linux is not really
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:59:16AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 03:00 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >On 06/08/2010 02:49 PM, Peter C. Lai wrote:
> >>On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/
On 06/08/2010 03:00 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:49 PM, Peter C. Lai wrote:
On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -040
On 06/08/2010 02:49 PM, Peter C. Lai wrote:
On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Why does FreeBSD 6.3
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:49:20PM -0400, Peter C. Lai wrote:
> On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > > On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Cla
On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > >>Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> 4.9 didn't?
>
> * 6.3 *
> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
> empty list for ipfilter(out)
> empty list for ipfilter(in)
> Z2984:~
> $ ifconfig rl0
> rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>
On 06/08/2010 02:40 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >>Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> >>4.9 didn't?
> >
> >The following output would help:
>
On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>>
>>> * 6.3 *
>>> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
>>> emp
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>>
>>> * 6.3 *
>>> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2010 19:05:06, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>> 4.9 didn't?
>
> The following output would help:
>
> - ifconfig -a
> - ne
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>
>> The following output would help:
>>
>
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:30:49 -0400
Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hmmm... how is not responding to pings associated with forwarding?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/169.254
Link Local addresses are special.
HTH
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
___
freebsd-sta
On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo ipfstat -nio
empty list for ipfilter(out)
empty list for ipfilter(in)
Z2984:~
$ ifconfig rl0
rl0: flags
On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
The following output would help:
- ifconfig -a
- netstat -rn
- Contents of /etc/rc.conf
Also, be aware that REL
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> 4.9 didn't?
The following output would help:
- ifconfig -a
- netstat -rn
- Contents of /etc/rc.conf
Also, be aware that RELENG_6 is to be EOL'd at the end of this year:
h
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo ipfstat -nio
empty list for ipfilter(out)
empty list for ipfilter(in)
Z2984:~
$ ifconfig rl0
rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=8
inet 192.168.129.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.16
23 matches
Mail list logo
