Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:02:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:02:09 -0500 Received: from 64-60-75-69-cust.telepacific.net ([64.60.75.69]:61202 "EHLO racerx.ixiacom.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:01:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3AA5B21D.B02B6885@ixiacom.com> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:59:25 -0800 From: Bryan Rittmeyer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: conducting TCP sessions with non-local IPs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Jackson wrote: > What the hell kind of monster are you making? There's got to be another way. heh. As I mentioned in my other response, we're doing TCP/IP load balance testing--so we need one linux system to act as many hosts. The only solution, short of using bind/connect/accept/etc with non-local IPs, is to use raw sockets (libpcap+libnet) and handle all of the TCP protocol layer in userland. For speed reasons, that's clearly not desireable, so I am seeking a kernel solution for acting as many hosts (10,000+) without having to bring up network interfaces for each one.... Kind of sick, isn't it? :) In any case we will definitely be pushing the 2.4 network code to the extreme. Regards, Bryan -- Bryan Rittmeyer mailto:bryan@ixiacom.com Ixia Communications 26601 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, CA 91302 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/