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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-net-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]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? - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
