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

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

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.

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 18:02:18, Steve Iribarne wrote:
>-> 
>-> What is so wrong with RFC198 addresses??
>-> 

>Really RFC1918 you mean...

Indeed 1918

>Well if your product is placed behind a nat'd network, MOST if not ALL
> nat'd network addresses on the "inside" use the RFC1918 address space.  

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 using
127.x addresses? 
I am assuming you want this address for some internal network whereas the 
external contains some routable addresses?

> So I have this working in my products now.  I had to do something a bit
> different in that I want a "special" 127.xx.xx.xx range to be sent out
> on the wire.  So here is what I did.

[..]

Seems you did too much. Look at the 2 liner patch posted by Eran Mann
(which should work on 2.4 and 2.6 as well).

cheers,
jamal