On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:01:21AM +0200, Jean-Francois Dive wrote: > relace your lo ip address 192.168.1.4/24 by 192.168.1.4/32 and better > put some routes as well. So, do you mean that my situation is ok? But why? If we have some <real> interfacein place of lo:1 (say, eth0), than all work as expected... > On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 07:19, Denis Zaitsev wrote: > > I'm setting up a PPP link between two Linuxes. Let them be called as > > server (who receives a call) and client (who calls out). After the > > connection has been established, the machines have got the following > > interfaces: > > > > Server (2.4.22): > > lo 127.0.0.1 /8 > > eth0 192.168.1.1 /24 > > ppp1 192.168.1.253 /32 > > > > Client (2.4.20): > > lo 127.0.0.1 /8 > > lo:1 192.168.1.4 /24 > > ppp0 192.168.1.254 /32 > > > > And in this configuration no one ping from the server has a reply. As > > well as any other kind of connection from the server waits forever for > > the reply. (There are no firewall at the any side.) > > > > And the problem seems to be with lo:1. If I remove it, or if I change > > its address to 192.168.2.x, all becomes ok. > > > > So, what does it mean? Is it just my mistake or something like a > > kernel (?) bug? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > - > > : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > > -> Jean-Francois Dive > --> jef@linuxbe.org > > I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. > -- Oscar Wilde > - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
