[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
In-reply-to: <1110291470.1043.211.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
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.


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