[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] Samba client
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 22:41 +0200, m0n0 wrote:
>> Am Mi, 1.09.2010, 19:44 schrieb Peter Slegg:
>>
>>
>> > The resulting network doesn't have 192.168.0.0 rtk0
>> >
>> > bash-2.05a# route
>> > Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Metric Iface
>> > default 192.168.0.1 UGD 1 0 0 rtk0
>> > 192.168.0.200 * UH 1 0 0 lo0
>> > 127.0.0.0 * U 1 0 0 lo0
>> > 127.0.0.1 * UH 1 8 0 lo0
>> >
>> > I am going to add it to defaultroute to see if that helps.
>> >
>>
>> Probably I missed something but I really don't understand what your
>> problem is. If I would see such an routing table, my problem wouldn't be
>> samba or stuff like that - but I would want to know why the f...
>> 192.168.0.200 is bound to lo0 .
>>
>> If there is still someone out there maintaining the network stack,... it
>> would be nice if he can tell. I wouldn't accept the local network attached
>> to the loopback interface, as long as no one provides an reason for
>> that... and I probably wouldn't try to fix something in samba, as long as
>> my LAN IP is bound to the loopback interface...
>
> As I said before (please read my previous post). This is normal with
> MiNT's stack.
>
> Alan.
>
@m0n0
> .. but I would want to know why the f...
>> 192.168.0.200 is bound to lo0 .
If you have only ever dealt with mostly windows networking, or
networking in recent years, you would expect this to be true.
I am not 100% sure of the original reasoning for the use of this, but
it was more common 10-20 years ago (very common?).
I do however suspect that Alan does know what is up with its use in MiNT.
I would put this down to "legacy implementation" (from the era MiNT
gained networking)
remember, networking on BSD/Linux systems has only become "simple" in
the last few years
Paul