[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing)
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 08 Mar 2005 16:17:11 -0500
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: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503081937020.5332@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
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> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503081937020.5332@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 13:40, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.

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). 
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.
If he puts only a single box then he may likely get away with it.

> > 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.

indeed that is what is needed in this case if the problem is address
conflict resolution. An equivalent for v4 (called zeroconf) is at:
It is unfortunate though because Apple has been claiming it has
patented this v4 linklocal scheme - and if i recall the person who wrote
the Linux code eventually took it off their web page (cant even seem to
find the web page anymore).


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