All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.