Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271030AbTG1UtP (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:49:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271036AbTG1Us4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:48:56 -0400 Received: from ppp-62-245-210-230.mnet-online.de ([62.245.210.230]:64161 "EHLO frodo.midearth.frodoid.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271030AbTG1UqC (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:46:02 -0400 To: "Carlos Velasco" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices From: Julien Oster Organization: FRODOID.ORG X-Face: #C"_SRmka_V!KOD9IoD~=}8-P'ekRGm,8qOM6%?gaT(k:%{Y+\Cbt.$Zs<[X|e)?:O++jHKTA( Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:45:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Carlos Velasco's message of "Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:50:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1626 Lines: 39 "Carlos Velasco" writes: Hello Carlos, >>I don't deny that it fixes your problem, that is not what >>we're talking about. We're talking about how one should >>fix the problem, and I'm trying to show you why "hidden" >>patch is not the answer to that. > Yes, and I'm trying to tell you that it's not the only way to solve it, > but it is the simpliest way to do it. As I'm sure most of linux users > that have steped into this "behaviour" think about it. I can only speak for me, but I think the same. I'd also like to constate, that not only I see the hidden patch as the better and easier way, I also think it should not only be in the standard kernel but also enabled by default. For the majority of all cases, why should I want the current standard behaviour? If I have two network cards but each of them on different segments, I only want the machine to respond to the IP address attached to the network card on the corresponding segment. If I want both network cards with different IP adresses on the same segment (for whatever reason, maybe load balancing), I'll put them both on the same segment. There may be reasons why someone wants the current behaviour in special cases, but I think those cases are so special that you should need additional configuration tweaks to enable the kernel doing so. *Not* the other way round. Regards, Julien - 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/