Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?

Thanks for the correction about the limit on the # of route domains, David.

Andrei

--- On Thu, 4/7/11, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: David Miller <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Should ICMP echo responses be 'bound to the interface' of the incoming ICMP echo request?
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 10:44 PM
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>
> 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 [email protected]
> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html