I just confirmed that using dummy interfaces with a real netmask does
actually make things work the way I want. I notice the lo /32 interface
still gets created with the same IP. Are there any drawbacks in doing it
this way?
Gordan
Gordan Bobic wrote:
> Adrian Reyer wrote:
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:22:15PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>>> Is there a way to add a static route to a VM on loopback?
>>
>> You don't need to. As the guest has no network, it doens't need to
>> route, either. The kernel has the network and does the routing.
>> Do you experience any problems with this setup?
>
> Yes I am seeing a problem with this setup.
>
> Host A:
> lo:192.168.0.1/32
> eth0: 192.168.1.1/24
>
> Host B:
> lo:192.168.0.2/32
> eth0: 192.168.1.2/24
>
> When host A connects to 192.168.0.2, the connection looks like it came
> from 192.168.1.1, rather than 192.168.0.1. I don't want my app on host B
> binding on listening on 192.168.1.0/24 interface. I want the connection
> to be going via the internal loopback only. I also want to keep the
> iptables rules relatively sane and intuitive.
>
> Normally, this would be implicit by the network scope, but since lo is
> different and setting 192.168.0.1/24 on it would make the local host
> respond on the entire range, I need an alternative solution that would
> work more sensibly. Would using a dummy network device work for this? Or
> is there a better way?
>
> Gordan
Received on Fri Oct 15 11:36:25 2010