Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Maxwell Lol <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:11:17 -0400
David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Programs don't bind to interfaces. Your question doesn't make any
sense.
You can write a C program that does exactly that.
I agree than most programs don't.
Programs don't listen to networks. Again, your question doesn't make
any sense.
Programs do listen to networks.
You seem to be under the misconception that addresses belong to
interfaces.
ifconfig(1) associates addresses to interfaces.
whole. When you bind to an address, you accept packets sent to that
address regardless of what interface they arrive on.
If you configure an interface to one address, it's won't accept
packets addressed to other (unicast) addresses.
Some systems allow you to create a second address on the same
interface using a 'virtual interface.'
Unless you put the interface into promiscuous mode using a network sniffer.
Otherwise, it
would be impossible to set up a functional router.
Usually interfaces are connected to different networks.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- References:
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Prev by Date: Re: restrict implicit binding to addresses
- Next by Date: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Previous by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Next by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|