[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing)

To: <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing)
From: "Steve Iribarne" <steve.iribarne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:07:42 -0800
Cc: "Eran Mann" <emann@xxxxxxx>, "Zdenek Radouch" <zdenek@xxxxxxx>, "Thomas Graf" <tgraf@xxxxxxx>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxx>, "Martin Mares" <mj@xxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcUjej4PsvOaXecjS3GriTAzdbYHFAAc9kgQ
Thread-topic: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing)
-> BTW, please cc netdev or myself if you are addressing me. This email
-> just forwarde by someone else to me - I am not on linux-net. You seem
-> have trimmed down the CC list.

You should join the list and the quit when you are done.  Otherwise,
like with this email I get multiple copies of it.

-> I read this a few times and still didnt get it:
-> Why is it that people using 1918 addresses are affecting you?
-> Does using 127.x help you because you assume _nobody_ else would be
-> 127.x addresses?

I am in a chassis.  I need a way to do interface card communication.
Even if those cards are exposed to the outside world.  

-> I am assuming you want this address for some internal network whereas
-> external contains some routable addresses?


-> > So I have this working in my products now.  I had to do something a
-> > different in that I want a "special" 127.xx.xx.xx range to be sent
-> > on the wire.  So here is what I did.
-> [..]
-> Seems you did too much. Look at the 2 liner patch posted by Eran Mann

Right. That works too.  But what I did was about 10 lines of code.  And
I refined it a bit better I believe.  That way packets destined for "my"
internal network got out the appropriate interface.  The rest go on
their merry way to the loopback world.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>