From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110407.194420.193709030.davem@davemloft.net> References: <459953.12714.qm@web56602.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: iubica2@yahoo.com, ketil@froyn.name, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: swmike@swm.pp.se Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Mikael Abrahamsson 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.