On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, jamal wrote: Henrik, so what is the difference between this and using any random block of addresses?;-> If the packets never leave the box i can use IBM's block of addresses if i wanted - no need to sweat this far (with hacking the kernel). Not if you want to maintain sane routing tables within the box and still be able for IBM to connect the box to their network. Some components of the box will need to sit both in the external and internal environments. If Zdenek is going to put more than one box then theres nothing magical; he will have to sit down and configure one of the boxes manually - no escape there. No, as the packets never leaves his box in the first place there is no problem with multiple boxes. They will never share the internal network segment where the addresses are seen. He is building a multi-node box (single box, multiple internal nodes, some external intefaces) using TCP/IP for the internal communication between the nodes within the box. For this communication he propose the use of a part of the 127/8 address space, but only for the communication within his multinode box. Not for communication visible outside of the box. If he puts only a single box then he may likely get away with it. Unfortunately this does not apply to multihomed hosts, but provides an interesting address range which may be useable as an alternative to 127.X for the discussed purpose assuming hosts on the local network outside of the box is not using IPv4LL addresses in communication involving the box. Regards Henrik |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH 1/1] Fix default phy selection after initialization, Daniele Venzano |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pktgen: causing lots of errors in console log, Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |