[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:07:51 +0200
Cc: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidsen@xxxxxxx, bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030819145403.GA3407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH
References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030819145403.GA3407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:54:03 +0200
Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is exactly the case I calmly discussed privately with David then Alexey.
> Both explained me that in fact, the remote host shouldn't be filtering the
> ARP requests based on the source IP they provide,

Hm, what rule is broken by the remote host, then? I mean "remote host shouln't"
reads like "according to RFC-XYZ he should not".
IFF of course the remote host is not broken, then our idea must be broken. Else
world would have kind of a definition gap in this layer of networking, and I
hardly believe that.


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