|Subject:||Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing)|
|From:||Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:40:03 +0100 (CET)|
|Cc:||Martin Mares <mj@xxxxxx>, Zdenek Radouch <zdenek@xxxxxxx>, Steve Iribarne <steve.iribarne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eran Mann <emann@xxxxxxx>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<E1D7zBN-0004hX-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050306173145.GQ31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1D81mg-0002rz-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m1y8d0mss2.fsf@xxxxxx> <3sp35g$7hpm0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <422C0B50.20500@xxxxxxx> <3sp35g$7rsc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110288879.1050.167.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050308135134.GA20607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110290300.1050.190.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050308140301.GC20607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110291470.1043.211.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, jamal wrote:
Aha! Thanks for clarifying this. So the problem domain is: "IP address conflict" detection and somehow this is seen as a resolution to that problem. So what happens when you put tow or three of Zdenek's boxes in one location? Back to square 1?
Not if the 127.X addresses never leaves the Zdenek's boxes, when thinking in terms that each set of boxes communicating using 127.X addresses is a single chassis, seen as a single box to the network admin.
Except this wont be practical for IPV4 since those addresses are scarce. May make sense for V6 though (becomes like MAC addresses on NICS).
IPv6 already have link local addressing IIRC. Regards Henrik
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), Henrik Nordstrom|
|Next by Date:||Re: netif_rx packet dumping, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), Martin Mares|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), jamal|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|