Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:55:13 -0400 From: jhell <jhell@dataix.net> To: Reko Turja <reko.turja@liukuma.net> Cc: sclark46@earthlink.net, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD eats 169.254.x.x addressed packets Message-ID: <4C0F9D41.40009@dataix.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, 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... > I do not believe that is what he was implying by comparing this to Linux. I think he might be using Linux as a example of "They have not limited their users to only changing source code" to get the objective completed. They should have. In this case and reviewing the previous messages + remembering these: http://bit.ly/9sigji http://bit.ly/9pfE9A http://bit.ly/9CNT3K FreeBSD takes the correct action for this scenario which could proudly be used as an exemplary piece of code that other forms of OS's should use as a reference for integrity. http://bit.ly/byHBzN Regards, -- jhell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0F9D41.40009>