From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: RFC: Support send-to-self over external interfaces (and veths). Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:57 +0200 Message-ID: <466D7489.2000004@trash.net> References: <4669ED81.8060800@candelatech.com> <466D4165.2090506@trash.net> <466D6FD2.1020206@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NetDev To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46292 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751325AbXFKQPa (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:15:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <466D6FD2.1020206@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ben Greear wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> I would really prefer to simply make the prio 0 "lookup local" >> rule deletable so you can rules with higher priority. That >> allows to do send to self without any further code changes >> and avoids the need to bind applications to a device. >> > > I am not against making that change as well, but it is often easier to > just bind-to-device > than to set up specific host routes for every possible combination..as > it appears your > method requires. (I could have mis-understood the routing requirements, > but it seemed to > if you wanted any 100 interfaces to send to any other, your method would > required 100 * 100 > routes.) If you want arbitary combinations bases solely on routing, yes (thats not different from not using send to self). But binding explicitly should also work fine.