netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030817223118.3cbc497c.davem@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:48:49 +0200
> Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:24:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >  
> > > So stick the address on eth0 not on lo since its not a loopback but an 
> > > eth0
> > > address, then use arpfilter so you don't arp for the invalid magic shared 
> > > IP
> > > address, or NAT it, or it may work to do
> > > 
> > >          ip route add nexthop-addr src my-virtual-addr dev eth0 scope 
> > > local onlink
> > >          ip route add default src my-virtual-addr via nexthop-addr dev 
> > > eth0 scope global
> >  
> > I have a case where this doesn't work
> 
> Replying again... Alan does mention in the paragraph you've quoted
> to use arpfilter, which works for every case imaginable.

Okay, I'll show my ignorance and ask... the Documentation for arp_filter
says source routing must be used. Is there some flag I'm missing, or a way
to avoid having a rule per address, or is the 8 bit rule number larger in
2.6, or ??? Or is having a lot of IPs on one machine not an imaginable
case?

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>