Why do packets to cause dial-up?

Paul Civati paul at xciv.org
Fri Mar 31 01:12:46 BST 2000

Nik Clayton <nik at freebsd.org> wrote:

> The more interesting question is why is this happening?  The only other
> IP enabled system I have to hand is Win98 (I know, I know), and a quick
> "route print" shows that the route has a /8 netmask rather than
> a /32.

Good to see MS doing things differently as usual.

> It's my understanding that 127/8 is the 'local net', and that packets to


> any 127/8 address should go via the loopback interface.  That being the
> default, shouldn't a 127/8 route automatically exist to lo0?

You would think so, but judging by the below, there must be a 

> If it should, is it just my system that's misconfigured, and does 
> everybody else have a 127/8 route on their systems?


% uname -sr
% netstat -rn
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Refs     Use     Netif Expire          UH         10       42       lo0

% uname -sr
% netstat -rn
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Refs     Use     Netif Expire          UH          0     1065      lo0

% uname -a
SunOS mustang.xciv.org 5.7 Generic_106541-08 sun4m sparc SUNW,SPARCstation-10
% netstat -rn
  Destination           Gateway           Flags  Ref   Use   Interface
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------               UH       0     40  lo0


More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list