Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:26:16 -0400 From: Stephen Clark <sclark46@earthlink.net> To: Reko Turja <reko.turja@liukuma.net> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD eats 169.254.x.x addressed packets Message-ID: <4C0F9678.90605@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4A84438AC2044DEF873A7341CF0CF2F0@rivendell> References: <4C0E81D7.8020209@earthlink.net> <20100608180506.GA9340@icarus.home.lan> <4C0E8B42.70603@earthlink.net> <20100608184429.GA12052@icarus.home.lan> <20100608184919.GY63749@cesium.hyperfine.info><4C0E935E.1020409@earthlink.net> <4C0F8214.3090104@earthlink.net> <4A84438AC2044DEF873A7341CF0CF2F0@rivendell>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/09/2010 08:28 AM, Reko Turja wrote: >> One final comment - I still don't understand why FreeBSD "won't" >> respond to pings >> when it has an address like 169.254.1.1. I can ssh to the unit but it >> won't >> respond to pings. I tried setting up a linux box with an address like >> 169.254.1.2 and it "would" respond to pings. > > Linux is not really any measuring stick in standard compliance... > > -Reko > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > But reading the RFC it says the packets should not be routed - I don't see where it says that pings should not be responded to. Think about it the RFC was for link local devices - shouldn't on device on a link be able to ping another device and get a response. -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0F9678.90605>