mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>
To: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
Cc: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>,
	RANDAZZO@ddc-web.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2 nics in the same machine...
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:42:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040320184252.GA2016@hh.idb.hist.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040319223656.GF14537@alpha.home.local>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:36:56PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:16:36AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
>  
> > If you want to test NICs (or cables & hubs) do this:
> > 
> > 1. Run a packet sniffer on the "listening" NIC.  Run it in
> >   promiscuous mode so it'll even sniff packets not meant for it.
> > 
> > 2. Set a default route to the "sending" NIC.  Or at least a route
> >   to some network that isn't on your machine.
> > 
> > 3. Ping the remote network.  You will not get an answer, but:
> >   The packet will be sent through the "sending" NIC, 
> >   and sniffed by the "listening" NIC.  So you'll verify that
> >   NICs and cable works.  Optionally make a script that reverses
> >   the roles of the two NICs if you want to test both ways.
> 
> Nearly right. He will need to enter static ARP entries for this to
> work because his host will try to resolve the gateway's address first,
> so nothing except ARP will go out.
> 
I didn't think of that.  Of course, capturing an ARP broadcast is probably
good enough for testing cables.  One might want better than that
for testing the NIC driver though.

> DNAT out + SNAT in may be OK. I've used this setup in the past, but didn't
> not go on because of performance problems. Now, Julian Anastasov has written
> a wonderful patch named "send-to-self" which does the trick automagically.
> You can get it on his site ( http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ IIRC ).
> 
> > If, on the other hand, you're testing apps/protocols, don't worry that 
> > the traffic don't hit the wire.  A test utilizing internal loopback
> > is just as good.
> 
> Right. Except that in some very weird cases, the higher MTU on loopback may
> affect the app's behaviour (less packets, or bigger reads at once, etc...).

ifconfig lo mtu 1500  :-)

Helge Hafting 

      reply	other threads:[~2004-03-20 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-18 20:20 RANDAZZO
2004-03-18 21:54 ` Robin Rosenberg
2004-03-19  9:16 ` Helge Hafting
2004-03-19 22:36   ` Willy Tarreau
2004-03-20 18:42     ` Helge Hafting [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040320184252.GA2016@hh.idb.hist.no \
    --to=helgehaf@aitel.hist.no \
    --cc=RANDAZZO@ddc-web.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@w.ods.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome