From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick Turley <pturley@rocksteady.com>
Subject: Re: Question about limited primary addresses
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:41:32 -0500
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Message-ID: <4150A00C.7030306@rocksteady.com>
References: <414E5004.1060009@rocksteady.com>	<1095687787.1898.20.camel@wolfpack.ljm.dom>	<41507815.8080008@rocksteady.com>	<1095794481.1897.39.camel@wolfpack.ljm.dom>
	<415080A6.30003@rocksteady.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <415080A6.30003@rocksteady.com>
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

I've discovered the source of this problem. Unfortunately, the cause is 
so embarassing that I'm not able to discuss it. I will now go commit 
sepuku. Thank you for your time and kind attention.

Patrick Turley wrote:
> Jason Opperisano wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 14:51, Patrick Turley wrote:
>  > # uname -a
>  > Linux vmg2 2.4.26-gentoo-r9 #2 Fri Sep 3 07:13:35 EDT 2004 i686 Intel(R)
>  > Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.20GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
>  >
>  > # ip -4 add sh eth0 | wc -l
>  > 513
>  >
>  > # ip -4 add sh eth0 | head
>  > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
>  >     inet 10.1.0.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.1.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.2.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.3.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.4.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.5.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.6.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.7.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.1.8.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >
>  > # ip -4 add sh eth0 | tail
>  >     inet 10.2.246.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.247.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.248.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.249.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.250.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.251.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.252.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.253.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.254.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >     inet 10.2.255.1/24 scope global eth0
>  >
>  > from a machine assigned 10.1.1.100/16 and 10.2.1.100/16, i can ping:
>  >
>  > 10.1.0.1, 10.1.1.1, 10.1.2.1, 10.1.3.1, 10.1.4.1, 10.2.254.1, 10.2.25.1,
>  > 10.1.25.1, 10.2.255.1
>  >
>  > ...on the test machine with all the 10.[1-2].[0-255].1/24 addresses.
> 
> I've found that ping is not a good test. Even with the networking 
> broken, ping still works. Can you try to SSH/telnet/ftp/foo to the test 
> machine?
> 
> 
>