On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Dan Shoop wrote:
>
> My "Duh!" moment occurred when there were no static routes. Here if I tried
> using the "telnet> open -s 10.123.119.19 17.254.13.6 25" command w/o the
> static route I got the same SYN_SENT behavior as I was seeing with exim. This
> is I presume the point you were trying to make.
You give me more credit than is necessary - I was just after information
that I would need to have a chance of working out what is going on.
I think that you're suffering from the weak endpoint model, which assumes
that all the interfaces on a host are equivalent from the point of view of
routing. So (from this prespective) it makes perfect sense to send packets
out of en1 with a source address that refers to en5, because en1 is how
you get to the destination.
When it comes to Exim and Telnet disagreeing, I wonder if this is to do
with the route being configured after Exim has opened the connection. If
so, it might be that the route is cached with the connection (this would
depend on the version of Unix you are running).
Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}
