Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?

Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?

[David Miller]

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:02:53 +0200 (CEST)

> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, andrei radulescu-banu wrote:
> 
>> But here's a problem: the kernel supports only up to 256 route
>> domains, and I'd like to be able to use more interfaces than that,
>> physical plus virtual.
> 
> Sounds like that 256 limit should be the thing to be looked into then.

That limit was removed ages ago.

I notice that when discussions occur on this list, a lot of misinformation
gets spread around.

The problem is that the actual networking developers don't read this list,
they read netdev@vger.kernel.org instead.

Maybe it's time that we just get rid of linux-net because it's been nothing
but problematic as users search for information on it and very few people
on that list are knowledgable enough to even consider answering.

Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?

[andrei radulescu-banu]

Thanks for the correction about the limit on the # of route domains, David.

Andrei

--- On Thu, 4/7/11, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?
> To: swmike@swm.pp.se
> Cc: iubica2@yahoo.com, ketil@froyn.name, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 10:44 PM
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:02:53 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, andrei radulescu-banu wrote:
> > 
> >> But here's a problem: the kernel supports only up
> to 256 route
> >> domains, and I'd like to be able to use more
> interfaces than that,
> >> physical plus virtual.
> > 
> > Sounds like that 256 limit should be the thing to be
> looked into then.
> 
> That limit was removed ages ago.
> 
> I notice that when discussions occur on this list, a lot of
> misinformation
> gets spread around.
> 
> The problem is that the actual networking developers don't
> read this list,
> they read netdev@vger.kernel.org
> instead.
> 
> Maybe it's time that we just get rid of linux-net because
> it's been nothing
> but problematic as users search for information on it and
> very few people
> on that list are knowledgable enough to even consider
> answering.
> 
>