[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Origin of the loopback interface

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:17:52AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte at cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > n Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 07:26:28AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> >> Loopback should not be a substitute for IPC. At least one additional reason is that packets sent there might not end up where you think (they could be tunneled elsewhere, e.g..).
> > 
> > [ Btw: I could also tunnel any non-IP form of IPC if i have access to the OS.
> > ]
> You can but why would you? Ipc should be more efficient and necessary anyway  

You said that loopback IP traffic would not stay local to a node. You did not
say wether that would be an attack or a feature. I just said i could do the
same thing with any other IPC, eg: security and performance IMHO are
not arguments to decide between IP and other IPC.

I do not see a need for non-IP based IPC. Ultimately, whenever i want highest
performance, i am primarily talking about APIs atypical to classical TCP/IP
stacks (aka: beyond message passing APIs. Like RDMA APIs. Ylu just want to
make sure your API uses IP addressing of entities, and e voila, you can now
provide optimized local and remote implementations in the stacks without apps
having to bother learning two separate mechanisms. E.g.: RoCEv2. If you
want to constrain the scope of communications, you just use the right


> Joe
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Teorless

tte at cs.fau.de