From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrik Nordstrom Subject: Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:40:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20050306173145.GQ31837@postel.suug.ch> <3sp35g$7hpm0@smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net> <422C0B50.20500@mrv.com> <3sp35g$7rsc1@smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net> <1110288879.1050.167.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050308135134.GA20607@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1110290300.1050.190.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050308140301.GC20607@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1110291470.1043.211.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Martin Mares , Zdenek Radouch , Steve Iribarne , Eran Mann , Thomas Graf , Andi Kleen , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org To: jamal In-Reply-To: <1110291470.1043.211.camel@jzny.localdomain> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, jamal wrote: > Aha! Thanks for clarifying this. So the problem domain is: "IP address > conflict" detection and somehow this is seen as a resolution to that > problem. > So what happens when you put tow or three of Zdenek's boxes in one > location? Back to square 1? Not if the 127.X addresses never leaves the Zdenek's boxes, when thinking in terms that each set of boxes communicating using 127.X addresses is a single chassis, seen as a single box to the network admin. > Except this wont be practical for IPV4 since those addresses are scarce. > May make sense for V6 though (becomes like MAC addresses on NICS). IPv6 already have link local addressing IIRC. Regards Henrik