Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> >The Tulips are connected between machines A and B.
> >Each uses the same IP for both interfaces. If this
>
> I'm not sure that this is a very good idea.
Why not? It keeps the number of subnets down
and make sure that when I use that ip it'll
take the best route there. Also, I don't have
to figure out how to add a route to these win95
machines indicating how to get there.
> >So the right route is being created. So the bug is in ifconfig
> >displaying broadcast when it isn't.
>
> What makes you think it is not a broadcast interface? This is a completely
> orthogonal issue to routing.
When two cards a joined together by a crossover cable,
it can be viewed as a point-to-point interface.
> If you think there really is a bug in ifconfig, I'd be glad to receive a
> patch. But as far as I can tell it's behaving correctly.
The bug is in the fact that the kernel is correctly using the
value in the dstaddr field to generate the route, but ifconfig
doesn't display that field. It could display the broadcast address
as well, but it's not that useful.
Example again:
kleptog/~>route -n
[...snip...]
192.168.1.153 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
eth1
[...snip...]
kleptog/~>ifconfig eth1
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:F8:08:44:59
inet addr:192.168.2.152 Bcast:192.168.2.255
Mask:255.255.255.255
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:9 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:9
Collisions:0
Interrupt:9 Base address:0x6500
In three weeks all my exams will be over. Then I'll have a look at it.
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
