On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Philip Guenther<guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:57 PM, patrick keshishian<pkesh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Philip Guenther<guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, patrick keshishian<pkesh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> *aham* B ... was this a really stupid question? >>> >>> Well, you elided useful data by only including part of the netstat >>> output, you obfuscated it to make it harder to read, you failed to >>> even mention what version of OpenBSD you're running, *and* you >>> actually have a solution to your problem. B Why should anyone bother to >>> answer? >> >> ouch... but thanks for taking the time to reply. >> >> well, you have some good points there, but if you read carefully, my >> post wasn't of the "Hey everyone please help me!" flavour. It was of >> the form "I notice this on openbsd and this on this other platform, I >> wonder which is the expected behavior?" > > Sure, but how should someone decide that the behavior is expected when > you leave out chunks of the information that describes your setup? B Do > I need to have a multipath + ppp setup to be able to help? > > >> This was noticed on periodically-updated openbsd macppc-snapshots >> since pre 4.4 release until one from 2 months ago, which I'm currently >> running. > > So you're now running some undisclosed version of 4.5-current?
Not sure where you get the "undisclosed version" from. I pointed out that I've been using various snapshots over the stated time-line. I didn't keep meticulous notes on what exact snapshot I used starting at what date and for how long. Frankly I don't think there are many people that keep such accounting records. > Wait, does that "until one from 2 months ago" mean that the behavior > changed when you most recently updated the snapshot you're running?!? No. That is why I specifically said "which I'm currently running" to indicate that I am still, currently running the snapshot from two months ago. >> e.g., I can start a ping going for the particular host on the remote >> network, next establish the route and the pings continue out on the >> physical interface. If I start a new ping, those packets, now, go >> through the ppp0 interface. As verified with tcpdump. >> >> So, it seems, based on my observations, routes are "sticky" with >> respect to sockets; even non-TCP sockets, which seems bit odd. Do you >> not agree? > > Still asking for people to state expectations on zero data. B My > crystal ball says that that netstat info would have been interesting, > but since you apparently only are interested in responses from people > that happen to have multipath setups and use ppp, I guess I can't help > you. Thanks for your input, --patrick
