From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing) Date: 07 Mar 2005 18:50:31 -0500 Message-ID: <1110239430.1043.71.camel@jzny.localdomain> References: <20050306173145.GQ31837@postel.suug.ch> <3sp35g$7hpm0@smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net> <422C0B50.20500@mrv.com> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eran Mann , Zdenek Radouch , Thomas Graf , Andi Kleen , Martin Mares , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Iribarne In-Reply-To: <422C0B50.20500@mrv.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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