Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 May 2007 13:43:23 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:54:01 -0500 Moe Trin <ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| A "LinkLocal" or "ZeroConf" address started out as the Apple "Bonjour"
| or "Rendezvous" service - a mechanism to allow two sales weasels meeting
| in an airport waiting area to trade pr0n^H^H^H^Hsales information by
| connecting two computers with a network cable or wireless, but absolutely
| no knowledge of networks, IP addresses, or anything like that. Microsoft
| discovered the service, and incorporated it into win98 so that when the
| MSCE has so fscked up the configuration of the DHCP server that even
| windoze won't work, the computers will grab a random address out of
| their a$$ and use that to establish a local network connection. It took
| seven years to get this massive security hole past the IETF (RFC3927),
| but the intent is that when your system (configured for DHCP) can't find
| a DHCP _server_ to get an address, it will use an address in the range
| 169.254.0.0/16. The RFC recommends not having "routable" IP addresses
| (which it defines as anything OTHER THAN 169.254.0.0/16 and 127.0.0.0/8)
| and ZeroConf or LinkLocal addresses on the same interface. The only
| reason I can see to have a "routable" and "LinkLocal" or "ZeroConf"
| address range in the routing table on the same interface is to prevent
| "Martian" source error messages, which to me makes no sense at all.
| But then too, I really have never seen a loopback interface using DHCP,
| though I'm sure some MSCE has tried. If you have a box using the
| 169.254.0.0/16 address range on your _network_, FIX THE DHCP CRAP rather
| than hiding the symptoms. Actually at work (where everything uses
| static addresses), we monitor for 169.254.0.0/16 addresses to detect
| intruders on the network.
As far as I can see, Fedora did not put that address on "lo" by DHCP.
It did so directly.
Combined with proxy ARP (which Linux seems to do even if you turn it off)
having that address on "lo" makes it respond on all interfaces. It would
do the job for the sales people you described as long as it didn't happen
to pick exactly the same IP address for each.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-15-0841@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.
- References:
- using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- From: Allen McIntosh
- Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- From: Moe Trin
- using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- Prev by Date: Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- Next by Date: Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- Previous by thread: Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- Next by thread: Re: using 2nd network interface - won't try to TX anything
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
