Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:35:40 +0200
From:      Martin Heinen <mheinen0@wiesbaden-online.de>
To:        "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Confused by Loopback
Message-ID:  <20000623123540.A44419@Moses.earth.sol>
In-Reply-To: <20000621221927.B43715@pool0586.cvx20-bradley.dialup.e>; from cristjc@earthlink.net on Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:19:27PM -0700
References:  <20000621205221.A43715@pool0586.cvx20-bradley.dialup.e> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006212107220.46613-100000@orthanc.dsl.gtei.net> <20000621221927.B43715@pool0586.cvx20-bradley.dialup.e>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Crist J. Clark wrote:
> The Clark Family wrote:
> > 
> > Do you have an lo0 device in rc.conf?
> 
> Sure do. That's the ifconfig(8) output below.
> 
> > There was a bug (for a while) that caused lo0 to not be setup?
> 
> Yeah, the classic symptom was people not being able to talk to their
> portmappers.
> 
> > People sometimes delete lo0 from their rc.conf.
> 
>   $ grep lo0 /etc/rc.conf
>   network_interfaces="lo0"
> 
> > I'd expect a netstat -in to show up the loopback pseudo-device.
> 
> Interesting. Yep, it is in there,
> 
>   $ netstat -in
>   Name  Mtu   Network       Address            Ipkts Ierrs    Opkts Oerrs  Coll
>   lp0*  1500  <Link#1>                             0     0        0     0     0
>   lo0   16384 <Link#2>                           126     0      126     0     0
>   lo0   16384 127           127.0.0.1            126     0      126     0     0
>   tun0  1500  <Link#3>                         11500     0    11421     0     0
>   tun0  1500  209.179.192.1 209.179.192.189    11500     0    11421     0     0
> 
> And that is a weird entry for tun0 there. But still not in the routing
> table,

Just guessing, but according to lo(4) the loopback interfcace
should be the last one configured. lo0 should be Link#3 and 
tun0 should be Link#2. lo0 should be listed as the last interface
in ifconfig -a.

> And I can watch 'em go with a tcpdump(8) too. Oh, and I'll post my
> favorite,
> 
>   $ ping 127.255.255.255
>   PING 127.255.255.255 (127.255.255.255): 56 data bytes
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.37: icmp_seq=0 ttl=253 time=781.779 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=160.467 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=253 time=160.400 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=253 time=161.568 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.69: icmp_seq=4 ttl=253 time=159.994 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.69: icmp_seq=5 ttl=253 time=150.441 ms
>   64 bytes from 207.217.2.15: icmp_seq=6 ttl=253 time=153.001 ms
>   ^C
>   --- 127.255.255.255 ping statistics ---
>   8 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 12% packet loss
>   round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 150.441/246.807/781.779/218.437 ms

really funny, I would expect a few DUPs ...

-- 
use Perl;


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000623123540.A44419>