From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 10:26:24 CEST
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:04:52PM +0200, Sven Conrad nicely wrote:
>
> > question 1
> >
>
> Because there is a unique route which will
> allways
> be used for a specific destination. This route correlates to one
> interface and
> so to one IP.
So, the central node has 3 IP address, depending of what is the
destination route selected dynamically
> But the Internet is only IP related, the
> names
> are for more readability and are in no way transported.
Ok, expressive argument. Hostnames are for humans, and namservers
is another story.
>
> > question 2
> > -----------
> >
> > That seems to me a sort of 4-space singularity in the kernel's gravitational
> > subsystem.
> >
> > Is it caused by the concurrent spurious telnet session used, or is that
> > the wonderful world of masquerading/forwarding in the linux kernel?
> >
> I'am not sure, if I have understood this question.
And I, the query :-)
> But I expect
> it on the inner side, so you will see *enter*, then the NAT take place
> and as last stage this Packet is sended to the restore IP (*exit*), even
> on a single machine.
I think the double connection interfers in a dirty effect: I used the
serial connection in order to mantain the telnet, then I pinged using
the eth cable. The bytes coming on the serial are the telnet stuff.
In other words: the "ping" was on eth, and the "pong" was in serial.
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET