Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:51:49 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: Brian Somers <brian@freebsd-services.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Forward: Re: ping gif0 Message-ID: <y7vofojcioq.wl@condor.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <200109101054.f8AAsnJ57600@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> References: <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> <y7vwv37it2x.wl@condor.jinmei.org> <200109101054.f8AAsnJ57600@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:54:49 +0100,
>>>>> Brian Somers <brian@freebsd-services.com> said:
> The local endpoint can't be pinged unless you've got a route for
> it... that's just the way the routing code works.
> You can ping the local address for an Ethernet interface, but that's
> just because the hardware returns such packets.
> Adding a loopback route or address alias is the way to handle this.
Correct, but in this case, pinging the other end of the link also
failed:
gif0: flags=8011<UP,POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1280
inet 10.0.2.130 --> 10.0.2.2 netmask 0xffffffff
physical address inet 209.167.75.123 --> 209.167.75.124
waterloo.heers.on.ca# ping 10.0.2.2
PING 10.0.2.2 (10.0.2.2): 56 data bytes
^C
--- 10.0.2.2 ping statistics ---
15 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
I don't get the reason for this part. This is perhaps due to some
IPsec issues? netstat gave us an interesting result:
34 inbound packets violated process security policy
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vofojcioq.wl>