Messages in this thread | | | From | Richard Underwood <> | Subject | RE: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:12:38 +0100 |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > One thing I agree with you about is that an ARP resolution for an > address via one path should not block a resolution for it by another > path since to begin with the two paths may be to different routers > one of which is down.
Alan,
I can't believe that you're advocating networking code where:
1) It's not predictable - the route of a packet depends on the ARP reply generated due to a previous packet.
2) Linux will fail to communicate with the vast majority of routers under some, fairly basic, conditions.
I'm certain that Cisco (for example) won't change their ways. I can't blame them, either - no one else does it this way and there's no good reason for doing it like this either.
I think I'm going to give up at this point because I know I'm not going to get anywhere. A simple static ARP entry will fix my problems, although I'd prefer a more generic solution.
Good luck!
Richard - 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/
| |