From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: RFC: net 00/05: routing based send-to-self implementation Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:37:31 -0800 Message-ID: <4B141EFB.4070409@candelatech.com> References: <20091130175529.7555.10132.sendpatchset@x2.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:60226 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752839AbZK3Tha (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:37:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/30/2009 11:32 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Patrick McHardy writes: > >> These patches are yet another attempt at adding "send-to-self" functionality, >> allowing to send packets between two local interfaces over the wire. Unlike >> the approaches I've seen so far, this one is purely routing based. >> Especially the oif classification should also be useful for different setups. > > Why not put each physical interface in a different network namespace? > That should work with no changes today. This doesn't work if you want to have one application manage lots of interfaces and send traffic between these interfaces. Certainly there are use-cases that can use multiple name-spaces, but it's nice to have the option not to use them as well. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com