Thanks for the correction about the limit on the # of route domains, David. Andrei --- On Thu, 4/7/11, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request? > To: swmike@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: iubica2@xxxxxxxxx, ketil@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 10:44 PM > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:02:53 +0200 (CEST) > > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, andrei radulescu-banu wrote: > > > >> But here's a problem: the kernel supports only up > to 256 route > >> domains, and I'd like to be able to use more > interfaces than that, > >> physical plus virtual. > > > > Sounds like that 256 limit should be the thing to be > looked into then. > > That limit was removed ages ago. > > I notice that when discussions occur on this list, a lot of > misinformation > gets spread around. > > The problem is that the actual networking developers don't > read this list, > they read netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > instead. > > Maybe it's time that we just get rid of linux-net because > it's been nothing > but problematic as users search for information on it and > very few people > on that list are knowledgable enough to even consider > answering. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
