Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 10/08/2015 11:21 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: >> Hacking routes as one of the other replies suggested will only solve >> half the problem. The packet gets flung in the right direction. The >> problem is that the return packet won't be accepted. In fact the arp >> reply won't even happen. > > That's not quite correct. The problem is not that the packets > wouldn't be accepted by your client, or that your client would not > reply to ARP requests. The Buffalo device at 1.1.1.1 would accept > packets from your client (unless rp_filter is enabled and it had no > default route, but let's ignore that), but it would lack a route back > to the client. The Buffalo device would never send an ARP request, > nor would it send packets in return. Yea, I realized that after sending off the msg. It would never even send that arp request because it wouldn't see the src address as a local network hence no arp. -wolfgang -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
