Tom Eastep wrote: > On 5/26/13 10:42 AM, "Dash Four" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The point I was trying to make is for you to drop the restriction on >>> 'lo'. As I already pointed out, I could have other "local" devices >>> within the 127.x.x.x range, not just 'lo'. I don't mind having to >>> shoe-horn virtual devices (lo:X for example) into the same device/zone >>> either - that's fine by me, no problem. >>> >> It also opens the possibility for me to use more than one device for the >> "local" zone as well - with just "lo" currently allowed, I cannot do that. >> > > What's the point? Are you going to modify the 'local' routing table to use > these other devices? How does that work? > We've got three type of embedded devices, which attach themselves to a "main" machine (a PC or a server) via the usb port and are able to send/receive data in this way.
The usb port acts as usbX interface and for all intents and purposes the whole thing is considered to be part of the "main" machine/server. The actual usbX devices are created/initiated via the standard Linux tools in existence (there is already a set of kernel modules for this type of device in the main Linux stack) and that is how we use these and have been doing for some time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may _______________________________________________ Shorewall-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
