Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:04:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:04:01 -0400 Received: from [213.82.86.194] ([213.82.86.194]:23050 "EHLO fatamorgana.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:03:54 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Roberto Arcomano To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch suggestion for proxy arp on shaper interface Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:06:34 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] In-Reply-To: <200107242231.CAA00481@mops.inr.ac.ru> In-Reply-To: <200107242231.CAA00481@mops.inr.ac.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01072520063402.01036@berto.casa.it> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing Il 00:31, mercoled? 25 luglio 2001, Alexey Kuznetsov ha scritto: > Hello! > > > Recently I have had a problem with Linux proxy arp feature (using with > > shaper > > You must not enable proxy arp, when routing is asymmetric or configure > it manually. Shaper device is one of cases, when proxy arp cannot work > correctly. > > Alexey > - > 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/ Hello, First thank you for your answer. I must enable proxy arp cause I need it with shaper interface. During configuration in user mode I noticed that kernel sees shaper device instead of using its device attached (in fact I received from a lan machine a "IP conflit"): I think that it is more correct to use the device attached to shaper, for 2 reasons: 1-) shaper is not a "real" interface (I mean directly connected to a wire or wireless physical interface), while proxy arp sends "ARP REPLY" using physical devices only. 2-) Proxy arp would become more flexible, also using proxy arp interface: proxy arp is a great thing, particulary with complex wireless networks. Like all good thinks I think that we have to keep it under kernel to keep simplify sysadmin life! Anyway, there are some applications that need shaper and proxy arp (for example using a traffic manager behind a firewall). As I said in my first message, I tested it with 2.4.6 and it "appears" (I tested it in a very little net) to work well (but I think performance aren't so well...). Thank you for your help. Best regards Roberto Arcomano - 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/