Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261333AbTHSTfg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:35:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261379AbTHSTeP (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:34:15 -0400 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:15891 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261346AbTHSTci (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:32:38 -0400 Date: 19 Aug 2003 21:32:35 +0200 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:32:35 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Daniel Gryniewicz Cc: Andi Kleen , Lars Marowsky-Bree , davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Message-ID: <20030819193235.GG92576@colin2.muc.de> References: <1061320620.3744.16.camel@athena.fprintf.net> <20030819192125.GD92576@colin2.muc.de> <1061321268.3744.20.camel@athena.fprintf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1061321268.3744.20.camel@athena.fprintf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1440 Lines: 32 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/