On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 13:40, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: [..] > 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. > Henrik, so what is the difference between this and using any random block of addresses?;-> If the packets never leave the box i can use IBM's block of addresses if i wanted - no need to sweat this far (with hacking the kernel). If Zdenek is going to put more than one box then theres nothing magical; he will have to sit down and configure one of the boxes manually - no escape there. If he puts only a single box then he may likely get away with it. > > 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. > indeed that is what is needed in this case if the problem is address conflict resolution. An equivalent for v4 (called zeroconf) is at: http://www.zeroconf.org/ It is unfortunate though because Apple has been claiming it has patented this v4 linklocal scheme - and if i recall the person who wrote the Linux code eventually took it off their web page (cant even seem to find the web page anymore). cheers, jamal - : 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
