How can I disable the stack processing for the 127 net? Can someone estimate the amount of work needed to do that, and/or point me to the relevant piece of code? That is, I'd like to treat the 127 ne
Is it really? I've just tried ip addr del 127.0.0.1/8 dev lo ip addr add 127.0.0.1/24 dev lo and `ping 127.1.2.3' is then happily sent along the default route. Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' M
Well, at least it looks that way to me: svfx:~# netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.13.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192
That's like testing on a yugo. Make sure after upgrading to 2.4, you also get iproute2 toolchain. On 2.4.27, once you delete 127.x address from the interface, traffic will go as expected to another r
It's in the local table tgr:axs ~ ip route list dev lo table local broadcast 127.255.255.255 proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 broadcast 127.0.0.0 proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 local 127
OK, I think I am getting the picture. 1) looks like what I need may be possible, at least as far as some kernels are concerned. It's not clear that 2.4.25 will work. 2) I only have to perform close t
iproute2 has been the tool of choice since Linux 2.2. ifconfig/route and the old ioctl interface have been only there for compatibility and show only a small subset of the full functionality. That ha
It is clear it will. Not really. Recent (as in, in past 3 years) tools and recent (as in, in past 3 years) kernel. No, not really. 'Route' utility is by definition deprecated. [root@bawx2 ~]# ip rout
* Andi Kleen <m1y8d0mss2.fsf@xxxxxx> 2005-03-06 21:19 Yes, it will work around the martian route and arp checks but will probably break quite a few usersapce applications.
* Andi Kleen <20050306213047.GA65970@xxxxxx> 2005-03-06 22:30 I was rather referring to the reduced loopback scope. I'm aware of at least 3 applications that make extensive use of big portions of the
OK. We've gone a full circle, [except for a few digressions along the lines of me not knowing that while the rest of the world still uses 'route', under linux it has long been deprecated] you seem to
2) If it does require kernel hacking, would you like to do it for me? (as I had said, as a contract) I think what Andi Kleen was talking about below is something like the attached 5 minutes patch (ap
That should do it. Or you can even return false in the macro always for his case - since he will never have a lo device. However, using these addresses is a BAD BAD idea. A lot of other machines will
BTW, please cc netdev or myself if you are addressing me. This email was just forwarde by someone else to me - I am not on linux-net. You seem to have trimmed down the CC list. Indeed 1918 I read thi
RFC 1918 trivializes the IP addressing by boxing all hosts into either a "private" or "public" category, based on their need to access the Internet. The major thing the RFC misses is the fact that in
PS:- anyone not copying me in the responses while addressing me - i didnt see your response. sure. And the semantics are: dont route "private" addresses if they stray on the "public network". In othe
Using the same public block in all devices looks like the best solution. Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' Mares <mj@xxxxxx> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/ Faculty of Math and Physics, Char
People tend to use private blocks in a chasis (unique IP for each blade) - which by default are not routed outside the chasis. I have a feeling this is what you meant cheers, jamal