From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 24 18:00:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA18449 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18425 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA11421; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:43:12 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199706250043.BAA11421@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: 0000-Administrator cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Routing Problems In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:00:13 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:43:12 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I am running a stand alone FreeBSD 2.2.2 machine that is occassionally > connected to the internet using the pppd daemon, I noticed that I cannot > telnet to my ppp interface address (which works in linux): Well, the *reason* is that you have no route to your local address, so your machine sends packets destined for that address down the wire. The other side sees the packet and says "dunno what to do with that" and drops it. You can add a route to localhost and things will work ok. Does anyone know if there's any rationalle behind this ? Should ppp (and tun, and probably sl) be smarter and do the "right" thing with these packets ? Should their xxxoutput routine pass packets directly to their xxxinput, or even better, should ip_output.c pass packets w/ source & dst addresses directly to ip_input ? I'm going to take a look at adding a check and calling ip_mloopback() in ip_output.c.... Of course this isn't an issue for ethernet 'cos the NIC just picks up what it just sent out. -- Brian , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....