Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces

David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:11?pm, Maxwell Lol <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You seem to be under the misconception that addresses belong to
interfaces.

ifconfig(1) associates addresses to interfaces.

Right, and then that address belongs to the machine.

In the weak end system model. In the strong end system model the
address belongs to the interface.

If you configure an interface to one address, it's won't accept
packets addressed to other (unicast) addresses.

It will under Linux and under any system using the weak end system
model. It will not (for local delivery anyway) on a system configured
for the strong end system model.

Yes, it will. IP would not work if that was the case, you could
never have a functional router.

There are routers, there are end systems. While the two may coexist
within the same *** metal, they are still separate concepts.
Accepting a datagram for local (ie within the machine) delivery would
follow the rules for "end system." Accepting a datagram for
forwarding presumably would not follow the rules for "end system."

rick jones
somehow reading all of this I think of:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ishimmer.phtml

--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
.

Quantcast