Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:16:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:16:27 -0400 Received: from h209-71-227-55.gtconnect.net ([209.71.227.55]:784 "HELO innerfire.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:16:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:19:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Gerhard Mack To: Alan Cox cc: Bill Davidsen , Linux-Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [BUG?] unwanted proxy arp in 2.4.19-pre10 In-Reply-To: <1026584920.13885.29.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> 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 Content-Length: 1053 Lines: 32 On 13 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 17:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > In the absense of the proxy_arp flag, I would not expect that reply, > > the IP is not on that NIC. Before I "fix" that, is this intended > > behaviour for some reason? Will I break something if I add check logic? > > Is there something in /proc/sys/net/ipv4 I missed which will avoid this > > response? > > Your suspicion and the reality don't match. The RFC's leave the > situation unclear and some OS's do either. Newer 2.4 has arpfilter which > can be used to control what actually occurs Can we at least have matching defaults for ipv4 and ipv6 ?? Having ipv6 behave the opposite just isn't intuitive. Gerhard -- Gerhard Mack gmack@innerfire.net <>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing. - 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/