[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d07ad847-634f-fcd3-6b8a-77ca29c622d0@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 09:52:21 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@...sta.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, shuah@...nel.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftest: net: add icmp reply address test
On 11/2/19 4:08 PM, Francesco Ruggeri wrote:
>>>> I apologize in advance for being slow ...
>>>> I have 3 namespaces that have to share the same LAN, I am not trying
>>>> 1-1 connections among those namespaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would you cable this if it were an actual network with physical nodes?
>>> - bridge on R1 (since it is the gw for H1), with connections to R2 and
>>> H1 into the bridge
>>> - second connection between R1 and R2
>>> - connection between R2 and H2
>>>
>>> For the simulation, network namespaces represent physical nodes, veth
>>> pairs act like a cable between the nodes / namespaces and the bridge
>>> makes the LAN.
>
> Thanks, I see what you mean now.
> I was assuming a different physical model, with all the namespaces on the LAN
> connected to a hub (simulated by the dummy device). For simulation purposes this
> model seem simpler: there are N interfaces instead of N pairs, and one does not
> have to deal with the bridge end of the pairs.
> Why is the model you described preferable?
>
The tests are about traceroute in modern networks, not broadcast
domains. As such, it is preferable for these tests to be constructed
similar to other extisting networking tests.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists