Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:42:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:42:17 -0400 Received: from tsukuba.m17n.org ([192.47.44.130]:15549 "EHLO tsukuba.m17n.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:42:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:42:01 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200104190042.JAA23614@mule.m17n.org> From: NIIBE Yutaka To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: ARP handling in case of having multiple interfaces on same segment Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sometime, we have setting like following (say, in the migration process of changing IP networks, or perhaps wrong way of load balancing): +----------+ |eth0 eth1 | +----------+ | | -------+---+------------ Current implementation of Linux doesn't handle this case. The problem is ARP handling. When ARP broadcast packet comes to the host, both interfaces receive the packet, and regardless of the device, we reply to that packet. I think that we should not reply if the packet is not related to that interface. If the ARP request is for eth1's address, we should not send reply from eth0. IIRC, I had fixed this issue six years ago, but now see same thing. Kind a dejagnu... How do you think? For me, this is bug. -- - 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/