linux-kernel - Re: UDP question.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a885b78b0609160513y39adbd72nf9502da7a96e59ce@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:13:40 +0800
From:	"xixi lii" <xixi.limeng@...il.com>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: UDP question.

2006/9/16, David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>:
>
> > Let me explain my network environment, My program is running on a two
> > adapters machine, whose IP is 192.168.0.1/8 and 192.168.0.2/8, then,
> > my destination is two machine, whose IP is 192.168.0.3/8 and
> > 192.168.0.4/8. I use four 100M exchange and a 1000M exchange cennected
> > them to ensure the choke point is not at network  equipment.
>
> So both interfaces are part of the same network, and the machines are not
> connected to the Internet? (The host ns4.bbn.com is 192.1.122.13, for
> example.)
>
> > when I use two socket without bonding, one socket is bind
> > 192.168.0.1/8 and sendto 192.168.0.3/8, the other is bind
> > 192.168.0.2/8 and sendto 192.168.0.4/8, but, as you see, I get a
> > result that the speed of send by two adapters is equal to the only one
> > adapter's.
>
> None of your code gives the kernel any reason to prefer one interface over
> the other. Why would an interface bound to 192.168.0.1 be better than one
> for 192.168.0.2 if you're sending to 192.168.0.3?
>
> > yesterday. I got an uncertain idea, is the problem that IP layer is
> > separate with Eth layer ? when I bind src IP, it just do helpful to IP
> > layer, not real bind the adapter? when I send, the real ethreal
> > adapter is select by IP route? If the two interface can go
> > destinnation both, IP layer will choose the frist, not use both? Am I
> > right?
>
> Correct, you are binding to the adapter's address, not to the adapter. The
> IP routing layer still determines which interface a packet is transmitted
> on.
>
> > If so, when I use bonding, the adapter's physical address is the frist
> > one, Do this means that all of the packet come to my machine will go
> > through in the frist one adapter?
>
> It depends how you have the IP routing layer configured. You can configure
> it to select the adapter based on the source address if you want to.

then how do I configure this?
>
> DS
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/