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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
