Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:23:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:23:39 -0400 Received: from [193.120.224.170] ([193.120.224.170]:31374 "EHLO florence.itg.ie") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:23:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:20:27 +0100 (IST) From: Paul Jakma To: Dominik Kubla cc: Paul Jakma , Subject: Re: Arp problem In-Reply-To: <20010724140916.F31198@intern.kubla.de> Message-ID: 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 Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote: > IMHO this is definitely a linux bug, since the kernel can not now about > the true network topology: but it does.. (see my other longer mail). > Cable sharing might just be used for this one system doing the > routing/filtering/whatever between the two networks, while all the > other hosts are in seperated switch segments. Not a common setup > but you will see this often enough: head count is already 2... ;-) it should at least be possible.. eg, the linux router in question also runs an IDS to monitor traffic. so even if windows /could/ follow redirects to other subnets i still would want the linux box to route the traffic.. (rather than going direct through the switch and never being seen by the linux IDS). anyway.. (and yeah, i know it is not secure, just presume i have the switch configured to lock certain ports to certain subnets). > Dominik --paulj - 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/