IANAL, but I read it written by lawyers and been told by lawyers, that the aforementioned "email security disclaimers" have no bearing in law (US law). So they are annoying, useless AND waste bandwidth. Kind of like my post here. :-) Lee -- _________________________ Lee Johnson StormForge Technologies, Inc. http://www.stormforge.net/ Peter Stuge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:17:15PM -0500, warrier@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>Mr.Stuge >> If you will take time to scan my original email you will find >>that the bit that you have attached did not come from me. > > > Boom! Shame on me. :( > > > >>It came with the reply from JoJan at candelatech. I merely replied >>to the list with his mail attached thereby adding his statements. >> I trust that will clarify things. > > > Indeed. > > Top-posting (see http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html) > and lack of reply indentation made me completely lose track of who > wrote what. > > I hope you accept my apologies, I really am sorry for pointing a > finger at you when it should have been pointed at jojan@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> I am sure you could attach your helpful reply now since you >>did take time to point out other matters. > > > Deleted it, but I'll rewrite it. See below. > > Those stupid "email security disclaimers" annoy me, when I'm in the > mood I mark that by replying in some way similar to before, pointing > out the fact that it seems strange to ask for help publically by > sending a message in which you claim that people reading it may be > breaking the law simply because they are reading it, since it isn't > addressed to them. It would also cause lots of trouble for list > administrators since all such messages would have to be removed from > archives etc. Gah, I get upset just trying to describe the sillyness. > > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:27:38AM -0500, warrier@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>If a packet comes in with a vlan id that corresponds to a vlan >>interface that has been configured on a physical interface but with >>an IP address that is different from the vlan interface will the >>packet be dropped? > > > I believe this depends on /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward and possibly > also rules in the INPUT and/or FORWARD chain of netfilter. > > If IP forwarding is enabled, the packet will look just like someone > uses the Linux box as a router, and wants to send data to another > subnet. The Linux box routes the packet, which happens to be destined > for the local system. > > > >>192.168.1.1 I presume the packet will be dropped even if there is >>another vlan interface configured with the address 192.168.1.1 on >>the same machine.? > > > The key word is interface, VLAN or not is not important since they're > all handled alike. > > > >>Secondly if an interface is configured for vlan tagging and a >>packet without a tag comes in, will it be dropped? > > > No, it arrives on ethx, the interface which you have added VLANs to. > If ethx has no address assigned, it just gets thrown away. > > > Hope this helps after all, and sorry again! > > //Peter > _______________________________________________ > Vlan mailing list > Vlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.lanforge.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan >
