From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 15 10:11:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7034A106564A for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:11:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DEA8FC08 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id p0FABOi1077102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:11:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id p0FABOHY077101; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA22650; Sat, 15 Jan 11 02:05:08 PST Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:04:27 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: cswiger@mac.com Message-Id: <4d31712b.50rR8DPepKqFzqZo%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <1369035653.20110114233621@yandex.ru> <533DC7E8-4BA1-4FA7-A5FA-D4A3C9D08368@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <533DC7E8-4BA1-4FA7-A5FA-D4A3C9D08368@mac.com> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kes-kes@yandex.ru, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: strange behaviour X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:11:26 -0000 Chuck Swiger wrote: > > # ping 10.7.7.7 > > PING 10.7.7.7 (10.7.7.7): 56 data bytes > > ping: sendto: Invalid argument > > ping: sendto: Invalid argument > > ping: sendto: Invalid argument > > > > what is problem and how to fix?? > > Where are you routing 10.7.7.7 to? > > If you don't have a specific internal route (or NAT) doing > something with it, your upstream Internet routers ought to be > returning ICMP host unreachable errors for RFC-1918 addresses... In that case, shouldn't ping be reporting the ICMP error -- after sending the packet -- rather than complaining about an "Invalid argument" and refusing to send it at all? Even if 10.5.0.1 and 10.7.7.7 are routed differently on the local host I would not expect one to give "Invalid argument" and the other not.