Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:54:54 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xs4all.nl>
Cc: richard@aspectgroup.co.uk, skraw@ithnet.com, willy@w.ods.org,
       alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, carlosev@newipnet.com,
       lamont@scriptkiddie.org, davidsen@tmr.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br,
       netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, layes@loran.com,
       torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
Message-Id: <20030819095454.4935d48f.davem@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella>
References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk>
	<070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 917
Lines: 22

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:11:59 +0200
"Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > The RFC I quoted (985) says the ARP packets generated by Linux
> > should be dropped. Sure, the RFC isn't a standard, but there ARE plenty of
> > implementations that obey it for perfectly valid security reasons.
>
> Same goes for 1180. It it doesn't define a standard either, but makes
> perfectly clear that any interface has it's own ARP, not one ARP for the
> entire system.

Which is all irrelevant because the IPv4 RFCs say that host
based and interface based address ownership are both valid
system models.

Any document saying that they must be per-interface is therefore
invalid.
-
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/