From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SUQhK-0002HY-HP for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:58:45 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [108.48.117.33]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0M4300I5G6039DH1@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 17:48:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81792201B8; Tue, 15 May 2012 18:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 18:48:02 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20120515224802.GJ14763@denix.org> References: MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: 169.254 subnet X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:58:45 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:34:56PM -0700, John Tobias wrote: > Hello All, > > My board has a eth0 and wireless interfaces. I manually executed the > following commands to configured my network interfaces: > > 1. ifconfig eth0 192.168.3.139 netmask 255.255.255.0 up > 2. ifconfig wlan0:1 inet 169.254.6.199 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast > 169.254.255.255 up > > > My Routing table: > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 192.168.3.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 ra0 > > > My other machine is in 192.168.3.x subnet and I am able to ping the > 192.168.3.139. But, the problem is I can ping the 169.254.6.199 too. > > Is there any special on 169.254 because by using the said subnet it seems > the two interfaces has a cross over routing?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address -- Denys