[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 04062) Re: ping6 is sent out from wrong interface
- To: Fey Marcus <Fey@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: (usagi-users 04062) Re: ping6 is sent out from wrong interface
- From: Naohiro Ooiwa <nooiwa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:26 +0900
- Cc: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <69A5E767EC979846826F566C7932A3F207233D99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <4861ED72.6080100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <69A5E767EC979846826F566C7932A3F207233B5F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48621B7E.5090600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <69A5E767EC979846826F566C7932A3F207233D99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (X11/20080501)
Thank you for your comment.
>> Thank you for your quick reply.
>>> It's due to routing.
>> For the reason of selecting 'eth0', I agree.
>> But, I think the device is specified before looking up the
>> routing table in this case.
> Well, ping's man page reads:
> -I interface address
> Set source address to specified interface address. Argument
> may be numeric IP address or name of device. When pinging
> IPv6 link-local address this option is required.
> So you only set the address, not the interface to be used for sending.
Then, the man page doesn't match with the implementation.
>>> ...with eth0 being preferred over eth1 for multicast packets.
>>> You could add a dedicated route for ff02::/16 to make the
>> kernel output the packet via eth1.
>> This works when using only "eth1" for multicasts.
>> When multiple I/Fs are connected to separate networks, this
>> scheme requires changing the route every time a user need to
>> send ping to different network.
> Ok, my proposition was a bit too general. It would probably be better to set up routes for the exact addresses. So in your case to ff02::1.
> Of course, if you wish to send the same packet via several interfaces within a short time, this would still result in adding and deleting the routes over and over again.
>> I think kernel can solve this problem better.
> I don't think this would be intended....
I was just confused by the difference of
source address things between IPv4 and IPv6.