bert hubert wrote: [snip] > I still feel that this is a pretty stupid oversight - if routing is switched > off as it SHOULD or even MUST be on a host, this is not supposed to happen. People keep saying this and I don't think they mean it. "ROUTING" is never turned off on host doing IP (at least I can't think of a counter- example). Your average host probably has a default route, it has a loopback route, lots of hosts have a m-cast route, etc. Multihomed hosts are always going to have even more complicated routing tables. I think you mean, "if FORWARDING is switched off..." -- Crist J. Clark Network Security Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar, L.P.
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in T... David Litchfield
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw ... Robert Collins
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw ... Lincoln Yeoh
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in T... Lars Mathiesen
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP sta... Lothar Beta
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/I... David Damerell
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP sta... 3APA3A
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP sta... Darren Reed
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP sta... BrandonButterworth
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP sta... Adam Laurie
