Linux as strong end host

Rick Jones · External Since: Jun 13, 2005 Posts: 205

dspfun wrote:
> On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
> > dspfun wrote:
> > > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring the
> > > Linux host either as weak or strong?
> >
> > You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
> > Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.

> Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
> similar option to the Linux kernel?

I have no idea.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... Smile

feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Mar 11, 2009 Posts: 243

dspfun wrote:

> On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
>> dspfun wrote:
>> > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring the
>> > Linux host either as weak or strong?
>>
>> You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
>> Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.
>
> Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
> similar option to the Linux kernel?

Why would you add that to a kernel?
It is a firewall thing on linux. You could add it with firewall rules

Jorgen Grahn · External Since: Feb 17, 2009 Posts: 70

On Wed, 2012-05-02, dspfun wrote:
> On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
>> dspfun wrote:
>> > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring the
>> > Linux host either as weak or strong?
>>
>> You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
>> Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.
>
> Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
> similar option to the Linux kernel?

I still don't get it. In your original posting you wrote:

When using Linux as an ES (End System), Linux can be configured/used
as supporting either the "Strong ES Model" or the "Weak ES Model".
The default for a Linux ES is the "Weak ES Model".

What's the source for that claim, and why doesn't it also explain
/how/ this configuration is done? (I assume "you can rewrite the IP
stack yourself" wasn't what the source meant, because that's trivially
true and not very practical.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

dspfun · External Since: Apr 26, 2007 Posts: 18

On 3 Maj, 10:21, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> dspfun wrote:
> > On 2 Maj, 23:16, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> dspfun wrote:
> >> > On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
> >> >> dspfun wrote:
> >> >> > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring the
> >> >> > Linux host either as weak or strong?
>
> >> >> You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
> >> >> Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.
>
> >> > Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
> >> > similar option to the Linux kernel?
>
> >> Why would you add that to a kernel?
> >> It is a firewall thing on linux. You could add it with firewall rules
>
> > In Linux it (strong end) can be configured by setting up routing,
> > firewall rules, and arp.
> > But would it be beneficial (performance, ease of use, etc.) to have
> > this built in to the Linux networking stack so it can easily be
> > configured by a "simple flag"?
>
> No. It is't as flexible then, and the audience needing such a setup is
> simply too small to warrant such a setup built in.
> And a "simple flag" isn't enough, that setup needs configuring, too.

What kind of flexibility do mean would be missing? As stated earlier
in the thread a similar flags exist in other networking stacks.

Regarding the audience, I guess any network equipment vendor who is
running/using the Linux networking stack for end systems (i.e. hosts)
would need to have strong end in order to have "control"/"determinism"
of where/how the traffic is flowing. Probably others as well.

The flag would only be for strong end-ifying the Linux host. What
other configuring do you mean would be needed except for this flag?

Brs

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Mar 11, 2009 Posts: 152

dspfun wrote:

> On 2 Maj, 23:16, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> dspfun wrote:
>> > On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
>> >> dspfun wrote:
>> >> > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring the
>> >> > Linux host either as weak or strong?
>>
>> >> You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
>> >> Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.
>>
>> > Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
>> > similar option to the Linux kernel?
>>
>> Why would you add that to a kernel?
>> It is a firewall thing on linux. You could add it with firewall rules
>
> In Linux it (strong end) can be configured by setting up routing,
> firewall rules, and arp.
> But would it be beneficial (performance, ease of use, etc.) to have
> this built in to the Linux networking stack so it can easily be
> configured by a "simple flag"?

No. It is't as flexible then, and the audience needing such a setup is
simply too small to warrant such a setup built in.
And a "simple flag" isn't enough, that setup needs configuring, too.

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Mar 11, 2009 Posts: 152

dspfun wrote:

> On 3 Maj, 10:21, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> dspfun wrote:
>> > On 2 Maj, 23:16, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> >> dspfun wrote:
>> >> > On 27 Apr, 20:22, Rick Jones wrote:
>> >> >> dspfun wrote:
>> >> >> > Does there exist a "simple configuration flag" for configuring
>> >> >> > the Linux host either as weak or strong?
>>
>> >> >> You mean like the ndd strong_es_model ndd option in HP-UX? (And
>> >> >> Solaris?) I doubt Linux has something like those.
>>
>> >> > Do you think it would be useful if someone spent time on adding a
>> >> > similar option to the Linux kernel?
>>
>> >> Why would you add that to a kernel?
>> >> It is a firewall thing on linux. You could add it with firewall rules
>>
>> > In Linux it (strong end) can be configured by setting up routing,
>> > firewall rules, and arp.
>> > But would it be beneficial (performance, ease of use, etc.) to have
>> > this built in to the Linux networking stack so it can easily be
>> > configured by a "simple flag"?
>>
>> No. It is't as flexible then, and the audience needing such a setup is
>> simply too small to warrant such a setup built in.
>> And a "simple flag" isn't enough, that setup needs configuring, too.
>
> What kind of flexibility do mean would be missing? As stated earlier
> in the thread a similar flags exist in other networking stacks.

Fine. One would still not have the flexibility to switch it on/off when
needed

> Regarding the audience, I guess any network equipment vendor who is
> running/using the Linux networking stack for end systems (i.e. hosts)
> would need to have strong end in order to have "control"/"determinism"
> of where/how the traffic is flowing. Probably others as well.

Still representing only a tiny minority of linux users

> The flag would only be for strong end-ifying the Linux host. What
> other configuring do you mean would be needed except for this flag?
>

Well, you still need the "control of where/how the traffic is flowing"
You can't control that with a simple flag

Since this control is already part of the firewall rules, why on earth do
you want to add *another* means to an end?
The computing power needed to do that would be about the same as if built in
directly into the kernel