On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:04:19PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> [ reminder about the routing table works ]
Whoops, you're right. It wasn't anything specific to sk0 and sk1, just
because of how I assigned IP addresses.
> Small correction to my prev post - messing with route / PF to enforce goin
Anwyay. With "fresh" routing table - let's assume that the only thing there
is localhost. When you did:
$ ifconfig sk0 192.168.50.1
$ ifconfig sk1 192.168.50.2
The first command would add something like:
192.168/255.255.0.0 link#1 UC sk0
Flag C (check netstat man page) is important
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:24:17PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
icmp's replies would go through loopback in such case.
Really? I got the impression from tcpdump that traffic from sk0 to sk1
(whether ICMP request or reply) always went over the ethernet cable
while tr
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:24:17PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> icmp's replies would go through loopback in such case.
Really? I got the impression from tcpdump that traffic from sk0 to sk1
(whether ICMP request or reply) always went over the ethernet cable
while traffic from sk1 to sk0 did no
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
Is my guess correct? If so, is it possible to have OpenBSD route
traffic both ways across the ethernet cable?
Thanks.
icmp's replies would go through loopback in such case.
If you wanted to force it to go over the cable, you could use route(8) to
manually set ro
I have an OpenBSD 3.9 box with two sk(4) devices and an ethernet cable
between them (later to be replaced by other equipment). I tried some
simple testing as follows:
$ ifconfig sk0 192.168.50.1
$ ifconfig sk1 192.168.50.2
$ ping -I 192.168.50.1 192.168.50.2
$ ping -I 192.168.50.2 1
6 matches
Mail list logo
