From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: jhs@mojatatu.com
Cc: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Interface without IP address can route??
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:24:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E54FBA6.6090905@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1314190890.25967.114.camel@mojatatu>
On 08/24/2011 06:01 AM, jamal wrote:
>
> It makes sense to behave this way.
> IPv4 addresses are owned by the system not interfaces.
> If you want to control the forwarding behavior, control ARP so it doesnt
> respond on the interfaces with no IP.
ARP is already controlled, but interface was effectively promisc,
so it received packets anyway. This allows me to bridge packets
in user-space using packet sockets.
I understand your argument about IPs being owned by system instead of
interface, but I think it's the wrong behaviour in this case. Can
you think of any case where this behaviour actually helps?
Either way, it appears I can work around this by explicitly disabling
forwarding for this particular interface.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> cheers,
> jamal
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:20 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> I just noticed on a 3.0.1 kernel that the system is routing packets
>> received on an interface without an IP address. (I was trying to use the
>> interface in a user-space wifi_station-to-wired bridge application).
>>
>> [root@lf0301-demo1 lanforge]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/sta1/forwarding
>> 1
>> [root@lf0301-demo1 lanforge]# ifconfig sta1
>> sta1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:2D:12:16:0D
>> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> RX packets:85248 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> TX packets:1419 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>> RX bytes:67423391 (64.2 MiB) TX bytes:1087581 (1.0 MiB)
>>
>>
>> Seems that older stock kernels have forwarding set for interfaces without
>> IP addresses too, so maybe it's always been this way...
>>
>> Anyway, I can add some logic to my config to explicitly disable
>> routing for interfaces w/out IP address, but it seems to me that
>> it should automatically not route packets received on an interface
>> that had no IP address on it..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-24 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-24 0:20 Interface without IP address can route?? Ben Greear
2011-08-24 13:01 ` jamal
2011-08-24 13:24 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2011-08-24 16:15 ` David Lamparter
2011-08-24 16:20 ` Ben Greear
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E54FBA6.6090905@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).