On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 05:24:54PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On 17/10/2010 17:07, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >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)?
> It won't be using an external interface.
It won't be using dummy0 either
> This is for a guests-only internal interface.
there is no such thing in Linux-VServer
Received on Mon Oct 18 01:47:32 2010