From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6724CA9ED1 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 22:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3E62084D for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 22:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arista.com header.i=@arista.com header.b="eo/aq7B+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726944AbfKBWIb (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:08:31 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com ([209.85.160.196]:43991 "EHLO mail-qt1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726675AbfKBWIb (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:08:31 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id c26so18071795qtj.10 for ; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:08:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=googlenew; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ReWOzS/L1ng/k4/EsPr93pQFZeEIdR8roThMByBKu1Q=; b=eo/aq7B+qomkTPDGIjpnvNJnC6/OGOcikdHnaR0C8i7FQdW0E6CE7BZwx6j7bG/2M1 3FSXf+xfSi6X+hRrgnwv23ido0wOYJrVUALtgo3I/1DHVCB/2aj25B3F3aiza1CFVtRc F2KdMKi0TaRaWXAccLy/LSI7TGmAj/DcDoz7OUnQYX4Vvt//zp/48nj2/hPO64WPhaL3 DQj+LWZAM0apGjkDUlN81cKxmiHBTxwUXxAfshhkQ5BcO58ZnMA3Ur7HmW5mbdUc7e07 iFSRhRmIrPTnzzbq7cHBUo16p22wHEW5tnqOwWu6kH9kEEA6QXm0+k3vJt7ZfJpuZfzT okHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ReWOzS/L1ng/k4/EsPr93pQFZeEIdR8roThMByBKu1Q=; b=uMDw7dCdUVGnc0tAraKLEZYy3LXHjHW/wx4bcJ2HUnqygBhpniIlQLCxOludrExO6b jQg4rW/u0izXKcQtN8sBNhJEpQ1YwPj1wetngx06+ilQO20k50ajxNEI2L3QlRbVs2LT qkAHyetuB4DydRpIZPJcpDlsiXy+6eAtmE2gzn4osCMKk2iCwUSHTam1F0vUvL/XQ/6F mxJBKceZD/36YX8/P+32MLn1dNNtFv6+ihePqxwG30Frfch7IG+q/ZYm74hFaxNLTU0c LCy5z0gBW18Y72ylbc+DILSnxgISDSLICYqi0q9i9EmWJEuYGRwModqSubhcIfscSkTq mIlA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUil9rufHf0FlpVHxaPdO06QO7Fb5rmD93syCjmUPICrdagoFyX 9fbZYaNUUgMYAozmxZSFUooZrmfYI+auytUzsqsZDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwb8AH1vU4yDa669yQgSzVbSjaByFk0GcjQC9Z8rhbeanHl/ISlAr5AqZ37OFFF0Np7DAjuih2eAvA+KpHzQAw= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:109:: with SMTP id e9mr6470687qtg.233.1572732510445; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:08:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191101233408.BC15495C0902@us180.sjc.aristanetworks.com> <0a03def6-3ea0-090f-048f-877700836df2@gmail.com> <690336d7-0478-e555-a49b-143091e6e818@gmail.com> <06dd5c8e-7eeb-a00f-e437-11897fe01ad1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Francesco Ruggeri Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:08:19 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftest: net: add icmp reply address test To: David Ahern Cc: David Miller , shuah@kernel.org, netdev , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > 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? Thanks, Francesco