* Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? [not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104080301280.14027@uplift.swm.pp.se> @ 2011-04-08 2:44 ` David Miller 2011-04-08 3:32 ` andrei radulescu-banu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2011-04-08 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: swmike; +Cc: iubica2, ketil, linux-net, netdev 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? 2011-04-08 2:44 ` Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? David Miller @ 2011-04-08 3:32 ` andrei radulescu-banu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: andrei radulescu-banu @ 2011-04-08 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: swmike, David Miller; +Cc: ketil, linux-net, netdev 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. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-08 3:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <459953.12714.qm@web56602.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104080301280.14027@uplift.swm.pp.se>
2011-04-08 2:44 ` Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? David Miller
2011-04-08 3:32 ` andrei radulescu-banu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).