Re: Passive vs Active targets
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Kenneth Porter <shiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:14:21 -0800
- In-reply-to: <YgvdN1TyccOE+/V1@gardel-login>
- References: <50b73c65-a7c3-0abb-d4d2-4014c7224ee8@pasteur.fr> <YguF4iU+O6uZLlAU@gardel-login> <0C06956534CA14252F3BC45A@[192.168.69.69]> <YgvdN1TyccOE+/V1@gardel-login>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Given that interfaces can come and go, does network.target imply that
all possible interfaces are up? Or does it just mean that the
infrastructure is there for DHCP-capable interfaces to begin searching
for an address?
- Follow-Ups:
- Antw: [EXT] Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Ulrich Windl
- Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Lennart Poettering
- Antw: [EXT] Re: Passive vs Active targets
- References:
- Passive vs Active targets
- From: Thomas HUMMEL
- Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Lennart Poettering
- Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Kenneth Porter
- Re: Passive vs Active targets
- From: Lennart Poettering
- Passive vs Active targets
- Prev by Date: Re: Passive vs Active targets
- Next by Date: Re: Passive vs Active targets
- Previous by thread: Re: Passive vs Active targets
- Next by thread: Re: Passive vs Active targets
- Index(es):
 |