> On 24 Feb 2016, at 05:06, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Gilberto Bertin > <gilberto.ber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This series introduces support for the SO_BINDTOSUBNET socket option, which >> allows a listener socket to bind to a subnet instead of * or a single >> address. >> >> Motivation: >> consider a set of servers, each one with thousands and thousands of IP >> addresses. Since assigning /32 or /128 IP individual addresses would be >> inefficient, one solution can be assigning subnets using local routes >> (with 'ip route add local'). >> > Hi Gilberto, > > The concept is certainly relevant, but allowing binds by subnet seems > arbitrary. I can imagine that someone might want to bind to a list of > addresses, list of interfaces, list of subnets, or complex > combinations like a subnet on one interface, and list of addresses on > another. So I wonder if this is another use case for a BPF program on > a listener socket, like a program for a scoring function. Maybe this > could even combined with BPF SO_REUSERPORT somehow? > > Tom
Hi Tom, thanks for commenting on my patch. Your proposal is certainly more generic, but at the same time it would require a bit more work to be used (at least for my specific case). Indeed in my case it would be only a matter of calling setsockopt() with a struct that decsribes the subnet, while with BPF it would be necessary to write and load a scoring function (but at least the subnet descriptor can be stored in a map, so there's no need to rewrite the filter for each different subnet). Anyway, I’m curious to explore your idea. Thanks, gilberto
