Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-15 18:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-15 18:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 00:59 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 10:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 04:45 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 13:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 14:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 14:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 15:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 08:24 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:39 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 17:35 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:42 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 02:41 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2013-01-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-21 00:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-21 21:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2013-01-22 10:11 +1100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-22 00:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 02:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 23:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-23 10:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 03:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 22:12 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:12 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-31 23:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-23 09:56 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:25 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:20 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:49 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:02 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:15 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 09:08 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 19:52 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:02 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:56 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-27 14:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 18:21 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 04:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 23:46 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-31 09:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:40 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 09:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:44 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 12:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 01:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 10:23 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2013-02-02 10:13 -0500
[OT] Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-02 17:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-02 20:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 14:51 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 21:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 00:45 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-03 00:52 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 13:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 13:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 15:08 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-05 10:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 15:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 19:40 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-05 14:17 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-06 02:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 03:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 00:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 16:24 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 17:57 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 13:07 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:24 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:19 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:17 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 15:47 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-04 03:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:14 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-06 09:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 13:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-07 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-09 13:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 17:19 +0000
ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-02-10 04:44 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-11 00:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-04 21:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-06 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kesb9e$vos$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7207 |
On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 19:40:00h +0000, UnRuh suggested:
> Yes, movies I guess are our definition of the world these days.
According to Wonkypedia, the phrase originated, not from the movies,
but the sophisticated humor magazine, The New Yorker Magazine.
QUOTE
"Take me to your leader" is a cartoon catchphrase, said by
extraterrestrial aliens who have just landed on earth in a
flying saucer to the first human they happen to meet.
It originated in a 1953 cartoon by Alex Graham in The New Yorker magazine.
The cartoon depicted two aliens telling a four-legged animal
“Kindly take us to your President!”
UNQUOTE
--
French military victories:
Hastenbeck, Carillon, Lodi, Austerlitz, Friedland, Ucles,
Wagram, Medellin, Smolensk, Dresden, Ligny, Trocadero,
Solferino, Foochow, Togoland, Maysalun, Koufra, and
in 2013, Tombouctou
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-06 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HZiQs.131880$2v.86360@newsfe05.iad> |
| In reply to | #7217 |
On 2013-02-06, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 19:40:00h +0000, UnRuh suggested: > >> Yes, movies I guess are our definition of the world these days. > > According to Wonkypedia, the phrase originated, not from the movies, > but the sophisticated humor magazine, The New Yorker Magazine. > > QUOTE > > "Take me to your leader" is a cartoon catchphrase, said by > extraterrestrial aliens who have just landed on earth in a > flying saucer to the first human they happen to meet. > > It originated in a 1953 cartoon by Alex Graham in The New Yorker magazine. > > The cartoon depicted two aliens telling a four-legged animal > ???Kindly take us to your President!??? > That does not sound right-- it wounds like it is a takeoff on an already established phrase. As an original it is not very funny. > UNQUOTE >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-06 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kesi8d$fqc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7219 |
On 06/02/13 02:11, unruh wrote: > On 2013-02-06, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 19:40:00h +0000, UnRuh suggested: >> >>> Yes, movies I guess are our definition of the world these days. >> >> According to Wonkypedia, the phrase originated, not from the movies, >> but the sophisticated humor magazine, The New Yorker Magazine. >> >> QUOTE >> >> "Take me to your leader" is a cartoon catchphrase, said by >> extraterrestrial aliens who have just landed on earth in a >> flying saucer to the first human they happen to meet. >> >> It originated in a 1953 cartoon by Alex Graham in The New Yorker magazine. >> >> The cartoon depicted two aliens telling a four-legged animal >> ???Kindly take us to your President!??? >> > > That does not sound right-- it wounds like it is a takeoff on an already > established phrase. As an original it is not very funny. >> UNQUOTE >> Its hard to p[in down. That's what Wiki says of course nut remember there was a whole UFO thing going at that time. SF was big too: it might have come out of an SF novel. For sure it was a catchphrase in the 50's -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-05 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kert0t$51b$9@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7206 |
On 05/02/13 17:59, J G Miller wrote: > On Tuesday, February 5th, 2013, at 17:22:23h +0000, UnRuh wrote: > >> So lets broaden the definition so far that it is impossible not to fall >> under it. Then you can say all men/women live under governement, and you >> statements become true but utterly meaningless. > > Not unless they are living as hermits. > > Even within families there is a type of government; why else > the term "head of the family/household"? > > And no matter where the aliens land, they always command > > "Take me to your leader!" > No they dont. The one I have met always want to know the way to the nearest public toilet. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-06 00:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kes7lr$fmi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7209 |
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:19:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher recounted: > The one I have met always want to know the way to the nearest public > toilet. Would they (the aliens that is) be the ones of the type "sans papiers" ? ;+}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-03 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkgt04h.1o5.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7187 |
On 2013-02-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 03/02/13 13:15, J G Miller wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:01:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Rather than blandly asserting it. >> >> According to <http://www.wisegeek.COM/who-are-the-bushmen.htm> >> >> QUOTE >> >> Among a Bushmen tribe, there is no main leader or chief — >> *the group is governed by consensus*. > > which is NOT government. It's Free and Open government (which is about as close to Linux as I can get this topic). Ideocracy and Tribalism /are/ forms of government, as is Communism, but they all tend to become Aristocratic or Autocratic under stress. Anarchy is a complete absence of government, but human nature being what it is anarchy rapidly becomes autocracy. Plato and Marx are interesting - and the political newsgroups tend to illustrate the difficulties of government,: and its absence. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 16:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87pq0i5p7a.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #7174 |
J G Miller writes: > Are there any groups of people living together who do not have some > form of government? Not possible as there are no people living at any location that does not fall under the jurisdiction of at least one government. > Even anarcho-hippie communes have some type of government, eg > <http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Freetown_Christiania> Doesn't count anyway: it's part of Denmark. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kek4vb$r99$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7176 |
On Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, at 16:24:41h -0600, John Hasler declared: > Not possible as there are no people living at any location that does not > fall under the jurisdiction of at least one government. You can only say that from the 20th century onwards since all geographical areas have been put under the jurisdiction of a national state government, but not all governments today have effective control over their territory eg Somalia, more at <http://www.rand.ORG/publications/randreview/issues/fall2007/newworld.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 17:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87lib65kvu.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #7177 |
J G Miller writes: > ...not all governments today have effective control over their > territory eg Somalia... All of Somalia is under effective control of one or another government. They just aren't all ones the UN officially recognizes as such. Most of the country is claimed by at least two governments. That's called "civil war". -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 13:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8738xe7cwx.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #7169 |
Whiskers writes: > Humans don't always respond well to any form of government; but they > respond very badly indeed to absence of government. Yes. They form a government (usually several, which then fight it out). Government is not a necessary evil: it's an inevitable one. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kejb47$10np$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7159 |
The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 02/02/13 11:22, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> If C1 has a *direct* route to the other subnet, then it will send ARP >> requests directly for the destination address. No need for a router if >> the source and destination are in the same broadcast domain. >> > If they are in the same brodcast domain they are not on different subnets. Different *IP* subnets can share the same broadcast domain (i.e. physical or logical ethernet network). Or do you mean that if 192.168.1.3/24 and 50.50.50.51/32 are in the same broadcast domain then they are in the same subnet ? Then it's all right, they do not need an intermediate router to communicate with each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-01 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keg8eb$mfd$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7147 |
On 01/02/13 00:49, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> On 30/01/13 12:17, dspfun wrote: >> >>> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >>> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >>> broadcast domain, right?! > > Wrong. See Richard Kettlewell's reply. > > Looks like you eventually understood, as you wrote : > "Only one physical interface in C1 (192.168.1.2) and one in C2 is > needed (50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3), even though both subnets are on > the same LAN. > C1 (192.168.1.2) will have IP-connectivity with C2 (50.50.50.51) as > long as routes are setup for that in C1 and C2." > >> It wont get a response. > > It will if the target has the proper return route. > >> The only way to achieve two subnets on the same >> physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces >> one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set >> uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the >> route to the 'foreign' subnet. > > Nonsense. It is much simpler than you think. All you need is add the > proper routes so that any node knows how to reach any subnet. > which is what I said. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 12:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <keisnl$rq9$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7153 |
The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 01/02/13 00:49, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> >>> The only way to achieve two subnets on the same >>> physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces >>> one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set >>> uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the >>> route to the 'foreign' subnet. >> >> Nonsense. It is much simpler than you think. All you need is add the >> proper routes so that any node knows how to reach any subnet. >> > which is what I said. Not quite. There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that" (which is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same broadcast domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate directly, even if they are in different IP subnets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kej5g2$81a$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7156 |
On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> On 01/02/13 00:49, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >>> >>>> The only way to achieve two subnets on the same >>>> physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces >>>> one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set >>>> uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the >>>> route to the 'foreign' subnet. >>> >>> Nonsense. It is much simpler than you think. All you need is add the >>> proper routes so that any node knows how to reach any subnet. >>> >> which is what I said. > > Not quite. There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) > interfaces one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with > that" (which is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same > broadcast domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate > directly, even if they are in different IP subnets. > No they cant. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 16:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kejan0$10i7$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7158 |
The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> >> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) >> interfaces one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with >> that" (which is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same >> broadcast domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate >> directly, even if they are in different IP subnets. >> > No they cant. Just try it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kejcfc$ma2$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7161 |
On 02/02/13 15:17, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>> >>> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) >>> interfaces one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with >>> that" (which is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same >>> broadcast domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate >>> directly, even if they are in different IP subnets. >>> >> No they cant. > > Just try it. > I have. Many times. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871ucyy959.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7164 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
>>> On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>>> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces one
>>>> on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that" (which
>>>> is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same broadcast
>>>> domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate directly,
>>>> even if they are in different IP subnets.
>>>
>>> No they cant.
>>
>> Just try it.
>
> I have. Many times.
Here’s a practical example. deodand has address 50.50.50.51. sandestin
has address 172.17.207.25. Both are attached to the same ethernet.
Each has a route for the other’s address, with their own ethernet
interfaces as destination. Specifically, their configuration looks like
this:
deodand:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000
inet 50.50.50.51/32 scope global eth0
172.17.207.25 dev eth0 scope link
sandestin:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000
inet 172.17.207.25/24 brd 172.17.207.255 scope global eth0
50.50.50.51 dev eth0 scope link
172.17.207.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.17.207.25
default via 172.17.207.1 dev eth0
Communication works fine in both directions:
deodand:~# ping -c3 172.17.207.25
PING 172.17.207.25 (172.17.207.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.885 ms
64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.732 ms
64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.751 ms
--- 172.17.207.25 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.732/0.789/0.885/0.071 ms
sandestin:~# ping -c3 50.50.50.51
PING 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.821 ms
64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.736 ms
64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.744 ms
--- 50.50.50.51 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.736/0.767/0.821/0.038 ms
There is no intermediate router involved:
sandestin:~# traceroute -nI 50.50.50.51
traceroute to 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 50.50.50.51 1.703 ms 1.677 ms 1.674 ms
There are indeed ARP requests:
deodand:~# tcpdump -npieth0
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
16:22:55.535283 ARP, Request who-has 50.50.50.51 tell 172.17.207.25, length 28
16:22:55.535307 ARP, Reply 50.50.50.51 is-at 54:52:00:42:60:3c, length 28
16:22:55.536422 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 1, length 64
16:22:55.536439 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 1, length 64
16:22:56.531078 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 2, length 64
16:22:56.531094 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 2, length 64
16:22:57.531292 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 3, length 64
16:22:57.531304 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 3, length 64
^C
11 packets captured
11 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-04 03:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <83726dc8-8d0e-408f-93d3-a9fb8cfcaf6f@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7165 |
On 2 Feb, 17:26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> writes: > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > >>> On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >>>> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces one > >>>> on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that" (which > >>>> is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same broadcast > >>>> domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate directly, > >>>> even if they are in different IP subnets. > > >>> No they cant. > > >> Just try it. > > > I have. Many times. > > Here’s a practical example. deodand has address 50.50.50.51. sandestin > has address 172.17.207.25. Both are attached to the same ethernet. > Each has a route for the other’s address, with their own ethernet > interfaces as destination. Specifically, their configuration looks like > this: > > deodand:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 > inet 50.50.50.51/32 scope global eth0 > 172.17.207.25 dev eth0 scope link > > sandestin:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 > inet 172.17.207.25/24 brd 172.17.207.255 scope global eth0 > 50.50.50.51 dev eth0 scope link > 172.17.207.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.17.207.25 > default via 172.17.207.1 dev eth0 > > Communication works fine in both directions: > > deodand:~# ping -c3 172.17.207.25 > PING 172.17.207.25 (172.17.207.25) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.885 ms > 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.732 ms > 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.751 ms > > --- 172.17.207.25 ping statistics --- > 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.732/0.789/0.885/0.071 ms > > sandestin:~# ping -c3 50.50.50.51 > PING 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.821 ms > 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.736 ms > 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.744 ms > > --- 50.50.50.51 ping statistics --- > 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.736/0.767/0.821/0.038 ms > > There is no intermediate router involved: > > sandestin:~# traceroute -nI 50.50.50.51 > traceroute to 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets > 1 50.50.50.51 1.703 ms 1.677 ms 1.674 ms > > There are indeed ARP requests: > > deodand:~# tcpdump -npieth0 > tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode > listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes > 16:22:55.535283 ARP, Request who-has 50.50.50.51 tell 172.17.207.25, length 28 > 16:22:55.535307 ARP, Reply 50.50.50.51 is-at 54:52:00:42:60:3c, length 28 > 16:22:55.536422 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 > 16:22:55.536439 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 > 16:22:56.531078 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 > 16:22:56.531094 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 > 16:22:57.531292 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 > 16:22:57.531304 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 > ^C > 11 packets captured > 11 packets received by filter > 0 packets dropped by kernel > > --http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ Great, thank you very much! To summarize, when the Linux host/router tries to resolve an IP- address (the IP-address can be part of any subnet and any VLAN/LAN): ARP will always send an ARP request to/for any IP-address as long as the IP-address is/has a next hop in any of its routing tables. Similiarly, ARP will always respond to an ARP request with an ARP response as long as it "owns" the IP-address and there is a next hop for the "requester's" IP-address in any its routing tables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-04 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cRRPs.69137$H5.30992@newsfe28.iad> |
| In reply to | #7194 |
On 2013-02-04, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2 Feb, 17:26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >> > Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> >> The Natural Philosopher a ?crit : >> >>> On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> >>>> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) ?interfaces one >> >>>> on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that" (which >> >>>> is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same broadcast >> >>>> domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate directly, >> >>>> even if they are in different IP subnets. >> >> >>> No they cant. >> >> >> Just try it. >> >> > I have. Many times. >> >> Here?s a practical example. ?deodand has address 50.50.50.51. ?sandestin >> has address 172.17.207.25. ?Both are attached to the same ethernet. >> Each has a route for the other?s address, with their own ethernet >> interfaces as destination. ?Specifically, their configuration looks like >> this: >> >> ? deodand:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show >> ? 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN >> ? ? ? inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo >> ? 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 >> ? ? ? inet 50.50.50.51/32 scope global eth0 >> ? 172.17.207.25 dev eth0 ?scope link >> >> ? sandestin:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show >> ? 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN >> ? ? ? inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo >> ? 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 >> ? ? ? inet 172.17.207.25/24 brd 172.17.207.255 scope global eth0 >> ? 50.50.50.51 dev eth0 ?scope link >> ? 172.17.207.0/24 dev eth0 ?proto kernel ?scope link ?src 172.17.207.25 >> ? default via 172.17.207.1 dev eth0 >> >> Communication works fine in both directions: >> >> ? deodand:~# ping -c3 172.17.207.25 >> ? PING 172.17.207.25 (172.17.207.25) 56(84) bytes of data. >> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.885 ms >> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.732 ms >> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.751 ms >> >> ? --- 172.17.207.25 ping statistics --- >> ? 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms >> ? rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.732/0.789/0.885/0.071 ms >> >> ? sandestin:~# ping -c3 50.50.50.51 >> ? PING 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51) 56(84) bytes of data. >> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.821 ms >> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.736 ms >> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.744 ms >> >> ? --- 50.50.50.51 ping statistics --- >> ? 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms >> ? rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.736/0.767/0.821/0.038 ms >> >> There is no intermediate router involved: >> >> ? sandestin:~# traceroute -nI 50.50.50.51 >> ? traceroute to 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets >> ? ?1 ?50.50.50.51 ?1.703 ms ?1.677 ms ?1.674 ms >> >> There are indeed ARP requests: >> >> ? deodand:~# tcpdump -npieth0 >> ? tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode >> ? listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes >> ? 16:22:55.535283 ARP, Request who-has 50.50.50.51 tell 172.17.207.25, length 28 >> ? 16:22:55.535307 ARP, Reply 50.50.50.51 is-at 54:52:00:42:60:3c, length 28 >> ? 16:22:55.536422 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 >> ? 16:22:55.536439 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 >> ? 16:22:56.531078 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 >> ? 16:22:56.531094 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 >> ? 16:22:57.531292 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 >> ? 16:22:57.531304 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 >> ? ^C >> ? 11 packets captured >> ? 11 packets received by filter >> ? 0 packets dropped by kernel >> >> --http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ > > Great, thank you very much! > > To summarize, when the Linux host/router tries to resolve an IP- > address (the IP-address can be part of any subnet and any VLAN/LAN): > > ARP will always send an ARP request to/for any IP-address as long as > the IP-address is/has a next hop in any of its routing tables. No. Only if that first hop in on its own network. My machine will not send out an arp request for your machine even it I had it in my routing tables. Only if it thinks your address is on the immediate network attached to my machine. > > Similiarly, ARP will always respond to an ARP request with an ARP > response as long as it "owns" the IP-address and there is a next hop > for the "requester's" IP-address in any its routing tables. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-04 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kep3fk$jo8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7197 |
On 04/02/13 17:03, unruh wrote: > On 2013-02-04, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2 Feb, 17:26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher a ?crit : >>>>>> On 02/02/13 11:19, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>>>>>> There is no need for "a machine with two (virtual?) ?interfaces one >>>>>>> on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that" (which >>>>>>> is the definition of a router). Nodes connected the same broadcast >>>>>>> domain (physical LAN, logical VLAN...) can communicate directly, >>>>>>> even if they are in different IP subnets. >>> >>>>>> No they cant. >>> >>>>> Just try it. >>> >>>> I have. Many times. >>> >>> Here?s a practical example. ?deodand has address 50.50.50.51. ?sandestin >>> has address 172.17.207.25. ?Both are attached to the same ethernet. >>> Each has a route for the other?s address, with their own ethernet >>> interfaces as destination. ?Specifically, their configuration looks like >>> this: >>> >>> ? deodand:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show >>> ? 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN >>> ? ? ? inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo >>> ? 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 >>> ? ? ? inet 50.50.50.51/32 scope global eth0 >>> ? 172.17.207.25 dev eth0 ?scope link >>> >>> ? sandestin:~# ip -4 addr show && ip -4 route show >>> ? 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN >>> ? ? ? inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo >>> ? 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 >>> ? ? ? inet 172.17.207.25/24 brd 172.17.207.255 scope global eth0 >>> ? 50.50.50.51 dev eth0 ?scope link >>> ? 172.17.207.0/24 dev eth0 ?proto kernel ?scope link ?src 172.17.207.25 >>> ? default via 172.17.207.1 dev eth0 >>> >>> Communication works fine in both directions: >>> >>> ? deodand:~# ping -c3 172.17.207.25 >>> ? PING 172.17.207.25 (172.17.207.25) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.885 ms >>> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.732 ms >>> ? 64 bytes from 172.17.207.25: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.751 ms >>> >>> ? --- 172.17.207.25 ping statistics --- >>> ? 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms >>> ? rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.732/0.789/0.885/0.071 ms >>> >>> ? sandestin:~# ping -c3 50.50.50.51 >>> ? PING 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.821 ms >>> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.736 ms >>> ? 64 bytes from 50.50.50.51: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.744 ms >>> >>> ? --- 50.50.50.51 ping statistics --- >>> ? 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms >>> ? rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.736/0.767/0.821/0.038 ms >>> >>> There is no intermediate router involved: >>> >>> ? sandestin:~# traceroute -nI 50.50.50.51 >>> ? traceroute to 50.50.50.51 (50.50.50.51), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets >>> ? ?1 ?50.50.50.51 ?1.703 ms ?1.677 ms ?1.674 ms >>> >>> There are indeed ARP requests: >>> >>> ? deodand:~# tcpdump -npieth0 >>> ? tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode >>> ? listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes >>> ? 16:22:55.535283 ARP, Request who-has 50.50.50.51 tell 172.17.207.25, length 28 >>> ? 16:22:55.535307 ARP, Reply 50.50.50.51 is-at 54:52:00:42:60:3c, length 28 >>> ? 16:22:55.536422 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 >>> ? 16:22:55.536439 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 1, length 64 >>> ? 16:22:56.531078 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 >>> ? 16:22:56.531094 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 2, length 64 >>> ? 16:22:57.531292 IP 172.17.207.25 > 50.50.50.51: ICMP echo request, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 >>> ? 16:22:57.531304 IP 50.50.50.51 > 172.17.207.25: ICMP echo reply, id 23409, seq 3, length 64 >>> ? ^C >>> ? 11 packets captured >>> ? 11 packets received by filter >>> ? 0 packets dropped by kernel >>> >>> --http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ >> >> Great, thank you very much! >> >> To summarize, when the Linux host/router tries to resolve an IP- >> address (the IP-address can be part of any subnet and any VLAN/LAN): >> >> ARP will always send an ARP request to/for any IP-address as long as >> the IP-address is/has a next hop in any of its routing tables. > > No. Only if that first hop in on its own network. My machine will not > send out an arp request for your machine even it I had it in my routing > tables. Only if it thinks your address is on the immediate network > attached to my machine. > which requires *more* than simply pinging a machine on a different subnet with a stock interface setup. You have to configure the machine to 'know' that Which is the whole essence of the argument, which was that any machine configured as - say 192.168..1/24 would be able to 'reach' a machine on 50.50.50.1 as long as they were on the same ethernet: It won't *without further configuration*. as anybody who has e.g. tried to set up a new ADSL router in a different subnet will tell you. >> >> Similiarly, ARP will always respond to an ARP request with an ARP >> response as long as it "owns" the IP-address and there is a next hop >> for the "requester's" IP-address in any its routing tables. >> -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web