From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sumit Pandya" Subject: RE: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:31:57 +0530 Message-ID: References: <3sp35g$7hpm0@smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , To: "Zdenek Radouch" In-Reply-To: <3sp35g$7hpm0@smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Zdenek, I don't know how much help you can get with "dummy" interface. Try to set your requirement with that special interface into mind. -- Sumit > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Zdenek Radouch > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:21 AM > > OK. We've gone a full circle, [except for a few digressions > along the lines of me not knowing that while the rest of the > world still uses 'route', under linux it has long been deprecated] > you seem to be agreeing with my original guess that > subnetting the 127 net may not be trivial, and that it may require > some kernel hacking. > > So my original questions still stand: > > 1) How could one remove the special kernel treatment of the 127 net? > [so that "lo" gets 127.0.0.1/16 and "foo" gets 127.1.0.1/16, and > so that the "foo" interface can actually receive packets? > > 2) If it does require kernel hacking, would you like to do it for me? > (as I had said, as a contract) > > > >> it won't accept outside packets with a loopback address. > > Not accepting packets with with a loopback address is one > thing, not accepting any 127.0.0.0/8 packets is entirely something else. > > Couldn't that whole 127 thing be ripped out of the kernel? > Why couldn't the "lo" interface be treated as any other interface?