From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrei radulescu-banu Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 20:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <814591.62002.qm@web56601.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20110407.194420.193709030.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ketil@froyn.name, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: swmike@swm.pp.se, David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110407.194420.193709030.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Thanks for the correction about the limit on the # of route domains, David. Andrei --- On Thu, 4/7/11, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller > 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 > 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. > >