Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7016 > unrolled thread

Using a public IP-address in my home private network?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

#7213

The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> 
> 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*.

AFAICS, nobody in this thread said it wouldn't require special
configuration. OTOH, adding static routes is not rocket science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7222

Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
> The Natural Philosopher a écrit :

>> 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*.
>
> AFAICS, nobody in this thread said it wouldn't require special
> configuration. OTOH, adding static routes is not rocket science.

It’s not even particularly special; the only way the route you add
differs from the route added when you configure an address with a
nontrivial mask on an ethernet interface is that the latter is done for
you.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7223

On 06/02/13 09:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>> The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
>
>>> 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*.
>>
>> AFAICS, nobody in this thread said it wouldn't require special
>> configuration. OTOH, adding static routes is not rocket science.
>
> It’s not even particularly special; the only way the route you add
> differs from the route added when you configure an address with a
> nontrivial mask on an ethernet interface is that the latter is done for
> you.
>
So about as simple as adding a virtual interface then.

e.g ifconfig eth0:1 20.20.02.20


-- 
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]

#7242

The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> On 06/02/13 09:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>>> AFAICS, nobody in this thread said it wouldn't require special
>>> configuration. OTOH, adding static routes is not rocket science.
>>
>> It's not even particularly special; the only way the route you add
>> differs from the route added when you configure an address with a
>> nontrivial mask on an ethernet interface is that the latter is done for
>> you.

I fully agree, but I guess that for some people, "special" refers to
anything beyond the IP address, netmask and default gateway.

> So about as simple as adding a virtual interface then.
> 
> e.g ifconfig eth0:1 20.20.02.20

eth0:1 is not a virtual interface. It is a (now useless) notation to add
an extra IPv4 address (aka IP alias) to eth0. This notation does not
exist for IPv6 addresses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7243

On 07/02/13 00:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
>> On 06/02/13 09:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>>>> AFAICS, nobody in this thread said it wouldn't require special
>>>> configuration. OTOH, adding static routes is not rocket science.
>>>
>>> It's not even particularly special; the only way the route you add
>>> differs from the route added when you configure an address with a
>>> nontrivial mask on an ethernet interface is that the latter is done for
>>> you.
>
> I fully agree, but I guess that for some people, "special" refers to
> anything beyond the IP address, netmask and default gateway.
>
>> So about as simple as adding a virtual interface then.
>>
>> e.g ifconfig eth0:1 20.20.02.20
>
> eth0:1 is not a virtual interface. It is a (now useless) notation to add
> an extra IPv4 address (aka IP alias) to eth0. This notation does not
> exist for IPv6 addresses.
>
OH dear

"Linodes have one network interface, eth0. When you add IP addresses, 
you create virtual network interfaces named eth0:1, eth0:2... eth0:n."

(http://www.linode.com/wiki/index.php/Multiple_IPs)

"*Virtual Interfaces*

lo, eth0:1, eth0.1, vlan2, br0, pppoe-dsl, gre0, sit0 tun0, imq0, teql0, 
.. are NOT actual physical network devices. They are software 
representations with similar properties to physical connections but with 
more flexibility. They are generally associated with a physical 
interface such as eth0.1 or eth1.1 etc but can also associOne exception 
is the loopback interface lo. "

(http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/networking/network.interfaces)


etc.

*shrug* If you want to be in a minority of one and consider your lexical 
definition right, its no skin off my nose.




-- 
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]

#7272

The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> On 07/02/13 00:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> eth0:1 is not a virtual interface. It is a (now useless) notation to add
>> an extra IPv4 address (aka IP alias) to eth0. This notation does not
>> exist for IPv6 addresses.
>>
> OH dear
> 
> "Linodes have one network interface, eth0. When you add IP addresses, 
> you create virtual network interfaces named eth0:1, eth0:2... eth0:n."
> 
> (http://www.linode.com/wiki/index.php/Multiple_IPs)

This is just wrong. Writing it on a website does not make it the truth.

> "*Virtual Interfaces*
> 
> lo, eth0:1, eth0.1, vlan2, br0, pppoe-dsl, gre0, sit0 tun0, imq0, teql0, 

and also bond0, tap0...

> .. are NOT actual physical network devices. They are software 
> representations with similar properties to physical connections

All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.
Just like regular "physical" interfaces, they can be used in routes,
iptables rules, ip commands and so on... Not eth0:1.

> *shrug* If you want to be in a minority of one and consider your lexical 
> definition right, its no skin off my nose.

Two web sites are not my definition of a majority.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7274

On Saturday, February 9th, 2013, at 13:46:05h +0100,
Pascal Hambourg explained:

> All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.

Is *alias* the correct name for eth0:{0,1,2,3,...} eth1:{0,1,2,3...} etc?

From the manual page for ifconfig

QUOTE

   If your kernel supports  alias  interfaces,  you  can specify 
   them  with  eth0:0 for the first alias of eth0. You can use
   them to assign a second address. To delete an  alias  interâ
   face use ifconfig eth0:0 down.  

UNQUOTE

> Two web sites are not my definition of a majority.

The majority can still be wrong.

I would guess that a majority of websites continue to
propagate the myth propounded by Walt Disney that lemmings
jump off cliffs en masse.


-- 

   "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that
    you never know who really said them."

    -- Abraham Lincoln

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7276

J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> writes:
> Pascal Hambourg explained:

>> All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.
> Is *alias* the correct name for eth0:{0,1,2,3,...} eth1:{0,1,2,3...} etc?

Sort of...

In today’s parlance they are labels; each of an interface’s addresses
can have one attached.  They are constrained to match the owning device,
so you can’t have a label of “eth1:1” on an address assigned to eth0,
and to be unique, so you can’t have two addresses labelled “eth0:0”.

The reason you see them in the output of ifconfig is that the
implementation of SIOCGIFCONF returns a record per IPv4 address, not
just per interface, and it returns the label as the interface name.

For instance given this configuration...

  1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
      link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
      inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
      inet6 ::1/128 scope host
         valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
  2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000
      link/ether 54:52:00:42:60:3c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
      inet 172.17.207.12/24 brd 172.17.207.255 scope global eth0
      inet 172.25.61.3/24 brd 172.25.61.255 scope global eth0:0
      inet 172.25.61.99/24 brd 172.25.61.255 scope global secondary eth0
      inet6 2001:470:1f09:11ed::c/64 scope global
         valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
      inet6 fe80::5652:ff:fe42:603c/64 scope link
         valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

...SIOCGIFCONF will return:

  {
    { "lo", { AF_INET, inet_addr("127.0.0.1") } },
    { "eth0", { AF_INET, inet_addr("172.17.207.12") } },
    { "eth0:0", { AF_INET, inet_addr("172.25.61.3") } },
    { "eth0", { AF_INET, inet_addr("172.25.61.99") } }
  }

(using the notation of strace, with formatting improved.)

The other networking ioctls throw away the colon and anything after it,
so code that thinks it’s inspecting the properties of “eth0:0” is
actually just seeing eth0 again.

The final part of the story is that ifconfig’s add_interface()
de-duplicates by name, so the second eth0 record above is ignored
completely.

The overall effect is to concoct the appearance of alias interfaces that
ifconfig documents, but also to fail to report additional IPv4 addresses
that don’t have a label (notice that the .99 address is absent):

  eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 54:52:00:42:60:3c
            inet addr:172.17.207.12  Bcast:172.17.207.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
            inet6 addr: fe80::5652:ff:fe42:603c/64 Scope:Link
            inet6 addr: 2001:470:1f09:11ed::c/64 Scope:Global
            UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
            RX packets:3415280 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
            TX packets:1674827 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
            collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
            RX bytes:3953044305 (3.6 GiB)  TX bytes:517681949 (493.6 MiB)

  eth0:0    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 54:52:00:42:60:3c
            inet addr:172.25.61.3  Bcast:172.25.61.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
            UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1

  lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
            inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
            inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
            UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
            RX packets:95929 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
            TX packets:95929 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
            collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
            RX bytes:121172928 (115.5 MiB)  TX bytes:121172928 (115.5 MiB)

If you want to know what your computer’s networking configuration is,
don’t use ifconfig(8), use ip(8).  There might be some new stuff to
learn but at least it won’t lie to you.

NB that none of this translates necessarily well to other Unix
platforms.  Linux has gone its own way.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7279

On Saturday, February 9th, 2013, at 17:06:08h +0000,
Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>> Pascal Hambourg explained:
> 
>>> All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.
>>
>> Is *alias* the correct name for eth0:{0,1,2,3,...} eth1:{0,1,2,3...} etc?
> 
> Sort of...

  ...

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

> If you want to know what your computer’s networking configuration is,
> don’t use ifconfig(8), use ip(8).

Sounds like good advice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7278 — ifconfig(8) vs. iproute

>>>>> J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>>>>> Pascal Hambourg explained:

	[Cross-posting to news:comp.os.linux.networking, and setting
	Followup-To: there.]

 >> All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.

 > Is *alias* the correct name for eth0:{0,1,2,3,...} eth1:{0,1,2,3...}
 > etc?

 > From the manual page for ifconfig

	... Isn't ifconfig considered obsolete these days, in favor of
	the almighty ip(8)?  And, FWIW, ip(8) doesn't seem to contain
	the word "alias."  (And neither does its output; see below.)

	AIUI, initially, Linux (the kernel) allowed just one IPv4
	address per interface.  Thus, the notion of "aliases" -- several
	"logical" network interface per single "physical" one -- was
	introduced.  With the kernel's IP implementation extended to
	handle the case in an (arguably) better and more logical
	fashion, the very notion of an "interface alias" became
	obsolete.  (And, as was already noted in this thread, these
	weren't "first-class" interfaces to begin with; for instance, I
	doubt that one'd use such an "alias" in the route(8) command.)

$ ip addr list 
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN 
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth5: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000
    link/ether f0:12:34:56:78:9a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.0.2.34/24 brd 192.0.2.255 scope global eth5
    inet6 2001:db8:1337::cafe/64 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 2001:db8:2001::da:42/64 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
...
$ 

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7286

On 2013-02-09, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>...
>
> The majority can still be wrong.

Yes, the large number of people who purchase and use M$ products
is ample proof of that.

> I would guess that a majority of websites continue to
> propagate the myth propounded by Walt Disney that lemmings
> jump off cliffs en masse.

Myth, huh?  My father studied considerable research about lemming
behavior during his career as a science teacher.  I recall him
telling me about the multi-year pattern and how the mass suicide
affects the local ecosystem and is actually not a bad thing for
the lemmings and their environment.  <sarcasm> I guess all that
research and film footage showing such events happening will have
to be redone--based on your statement that it's all a
myth.</sarcasm>

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7290

On Sunday, February 10th, 2013, at 04:44:08h +0000, Robert Riches suggested:

> I guess all that research and film footage showing such events happening
> will have to be redone--based on your statement that it's all a
> myth.</sarcasm>

Hmmm ;+)   Just to provide some details from around the web ...


From <http://www.snopes.COM/disney/films/lemmings.asp>

QUOTE

     During the filming of the 1958 Disney nature documentary White Wilderness, 
     the film crew induced lemmings into jumping off a cliff and into the sea in order
     to document their supposedly suicidal behavior.

     Lemming suicide is fiction.  Contrary to popular belief, lemmings do not periodically
     hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea.  Cyclical explosions in  population do
     occasionally induce lemmings to attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density.

     When such a migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning in
     lakes or rivers.  These deaths are not deliberate "suicide" attempts, however, but
     accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings' venturing into unfamiliar territories
     and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges.  In fact, when the competition for
     food, space, or mates becomes too intense, lemmings are much more likely to kill each
     other than to kill themselves. 

UNQUOTE


From <http://www.adfg.alaska.GOV/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56>

QUOTE

     Lemming Suicide Myth

     Disney Film Faked Bogus Behavior

     By Riley Woodford

     Lemmings do not commit mass suicide. It's a myth, but it's remarkable how many
     people believe it. Ask a few.

     "It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough.
     "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and
      that brought it to the mainstream."

UNQUOTE

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7296

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:14:37 +0000, J G Miller Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:

> n

I hear the sound of *Spank!!*



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 )\ (  ) /(    Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
 )-(0^^0)-(    Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
 )/ \\// \(    Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
    (oo)       Registered Linux User #556617
   / ~~ \      Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
 o@o     o@o   Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7212

unruh a écrit :
> On 2013-02-04, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Indeed. ARP requests are sent only for IP address which are directly
reachable on the network.

> Only if that first hop in on its own network.

Well, that is always true by definition of the first hop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7199

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800, dspfun Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:

> 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.


You keep trying, your efforts will fail.  If they don't land you in 
prison first...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 )\ (  ) /(    Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
 )-(0^^0)-(    Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
 )/ \\// \(    Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
    (oo)       Registered Linux User #556617
   / ~~ \      Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
 o@o     o@o   Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7166

The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> On 02/02/13 15:17, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>>> 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.

You must have made some mistake.
I just tried. It worked perfectly. 192.168.0.1/24 and 192.168.1.2/24
were connected to the same switch and could communicate with each other
without any router.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7090

unruh a écrit :
> On 2013-01-20, Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
>> <kdhe1k$1jg7$3@saria.nerim.net>, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>
>>> unruh a ??crit :
>>>> Now now. 20.20.20.20 is clearly a fake.
>>> Why doesn't anyone ever use the 192.0.2.0/24 range which is reserved
>>> for exemples and documentation ?
>> Because most people are totally unaware of the fact that there _are_ a
>> number of ranges used for documentation.   See
> 
> Except that in this case the OT clearly wanted to use a genuine, public
> address, not a private address, but also did not want to tell us the
> public address he really wants to use.

So what ? IMO this is exactly the kind of use of exemple addresses.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web