On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 01:08:22PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> The problem is that loopback reacts differently. It responds locally
> to all addresses in the subnet.
> e.g. if you set your loopback 127.0.0.1/8, the localhost will
> listen to ALL of the addresses in that subnet. If you set it for
> 192.168.0.1/24, then ALL of the IPs in that subnet will get answered
> by localhost, rather than passed out.
> Either way, the solution using a dummy NIC works. It turns out the lo
> IP bindings were a hangover from before, after I removed them they
> didn't come back, so it's all good.
> I think this is a point that's worth pointing in the dummy vs lo
> argument. With lo, the routing and filtering can be quite unintuitive,
> while dummy works exactly as you'd expect.
what's the point puting it on dummy, why not put it on
the actual interface it will be using anyway, e.g. eth0
(or whatever your traffic uses)?
> Rik Bobbaers wrote:
> >might be a stupid remark, but if you want machines to talk to each other
> >inside the same network, you have to put them in the same network
> >so, if you configure:
> >192.168.0.1/32 and 192.168.0.2/32, then these 2 machines are on a
> >different network, so outgoing traffic will go via it's network with the
> >default route, which is your 192.168.1.x/24 network.
> >So... i suggest you configure the interface on lo on at least 192.168.0.30
> >(or maybe more clear: 24) and go with that....
> >What's the reason you put /32 on those lo interfaces? what will you use
> >them for?
> >Rik Bobbaers
> >-- http://harry.enzoverder.be
> >linux/unix/system/network/security/hardware admin
> >infrastructure architect
> >>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 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:
> >>>eth0: 192.168.1.1/24
> >>>Host B:
> >>>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?
Received on Sun Oct 17 17:08:12 2010