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

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

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:
http://www.zeroconf.org/
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).

cheers,
jamal