Messages in this thread | | | Date | 19 Aug 2003 21:32:35 +0200 | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:32:35 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:27:48PM -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 15:21, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:17:00PM -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 14:48, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > So, changing your default route is a "hack"? That's all that's > > > necessary. You can even do it with "route del/route add". > > > > Necessary to do what exactly? > > Cause Linux to issue an arp request with a tell address not on the > interface sending the arp.
I was merely talking about _answering_ ARP requests on all interfaces.
What happens on outgoing active ARPs is a different thing. Reasonable choices would be either the prefered source address of the route or the local interface's address. I must admit I don't have a strong opinion on what the better behaviour of those is, but neither of them would seem particularly wrong to me.
-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/
| |