Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:48:47 +0200 |
| |
Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> writes:
> Yes, both are "correct" in the sense that the RFC allows this > interpretation. The _sensible_ interpretation for practical networking > however is #2, and the only persons who seem to believe differently are > those in charge of the Linux network code...
Just spend a minute to think about multihoming and failover between multiple links on a host.
For that the Linux default makes a lot of sense - you get automatic transparent failover between interfaces without any effort.
In my experience everybody who wants a different behaviour use some more or less broken stateful L2/L3 switching hacks (like ipvs) or having broken routing tables. While such hacks may be valid for some uses they should not impact the default case.
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |