Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261294AbTHSSxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:53:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261276AbTHSSvA (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:51:00 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:28933 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261274AbTHSStI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:49:08 -0400 To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices From: Andi Kleen Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:48:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Lars Marowsky-Bree's message of "Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:50:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090013 (Oort Gnus v0.13) Emacs/21.2 (i586-suse-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: 1026 Lines: 25 Lars Marowsky-Bree 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/