| To: | rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rusty Russell) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: "Loopback" route through two cards? |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:54:44 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, anton@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20020903050441.4052F2C414@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Rusty Russell" at Sep 3, 2 03:04:47 pm |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > I know this is an FAQ, but I never saw an answer I liked. And what kind of answers do you like? :-) > still impossible It depends on sense which you put to "impossible". There are two problems with this: 1. You cannot send to local address via any device but loopback. The only way to override this is to use explicit SO_BINDTODEVICE on sending socket. Hence, it is "impossible" not changing application. 2. You cannot receive packets with local address from any device but loopback. This is impossible, but wthis time without not editing kernel, removing the check for local addresses in fib_validate_source(). Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: "Loopback" route through two cards?, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: "Loopback" route through two cards?, Eric Lemoine |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: "Loopback" route through two cards?, Eric Lemoine |
| Next by Thread: | Re: "Loopback" route through two cards?, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |