[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#2857: tcpdump doesn't recognize the dummy device



Package: tcpdump
Version: 3.0.3-4

tcpdump, as the transcript below shows, doesn't recognize the `dummy'
network device.

# tcpdump
tcpdump: pcap_open_live (pcap-linux.c): unknown device dummy
# tcpdump -i sl0
tcpdump: listening on sl0
01:06:46.206181 sfere.elmail.co.uk.40005 > valour.pem.cam.ac.uk.ftp-data: . ack 3003000712 win 13140 [tos 0x8]
[...]

# ifconfig -a
lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Bcast:127.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP BROADCAST LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:3584  Metric:1
          RX packets:570 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          TX packets:570 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0

dummy     Link encap:10Mbps Ethernet  HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
          inet addr:193.116.29.15  Bcast:193.116.29.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0

sl0       Link encap:Serial Line IP
          inet addr:193.116.29.15  P-t-P:193.122.233.1  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          TX packets:37983 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0

ppp0      Link encap:Point-Point Protocol
          inet addr:193.116.29.15  P-t-P:193.122.233.1  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:4466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          TX packets:6329 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0

This behaviour may be clarified by the following part of the man page:

       -i     Listen  on  interface.   If  unspecified,   tcpdump
              searches  the  system interface list for the lowest
              numbered, configured up interface (excluding  loop-
              back).   Ties  are  broken by choosing the earliest
              match.

Since dummy is about as interesting to snoop as the loopback, it
should probably be treated the same.

--
Richard Kettlewell
richard@elmail.co.uk                    http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/


Reply to: