Re: [bug] nexthost: failed to find route to XXX (directly connected, with --randomize-hosts)

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:50:43AM -0500, Daniel Miller wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 11:42 PM, David Fifield wrote:
> > That's an interesting case. During the ping scan, is it breaking the
> > targets into many tiny little hostgroups because the ones that are
> > direct are not contiguous?
> I'll check my logs and get back to you on this. I would suspect yes.
> > Yes, probably, from a quick look. I only wonder about the tiny little
> > hostgroups and if we should do something about that
>
> I wonder how much extra memory it would take to have a "hostgroup in
> reserve" to which the odd-ones-out get added until they reach the
> min-hostgroup size? You could conceivably have a lot of hostgroups,
> but usually not more than 2 for a single target expression (since
> that would have to be the same address family). I can imagine odd
> cases with multiple interface names or source addresses, but I would
> hazard a guess that would be very uncommon.

That's something we should do in a lot more cases for efficiency. Like
if you're scanning your local network and you're 192.168.0.128, the
other hosts will be broken into two hostgroups for no good reason other
than ease of implementation.

David Fifield
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/