netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bas Bloemsaat <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:39:20 +0200
Cc: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, skraw@xxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidsen@xxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On 2003-08-19T08:34:38,
   "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

> There are two valid ways the RFCs allow systems to handle
> IP addresses.
> 
> 1) IP addresses are owned by "the host"
> 2) IP addresses are owned by "the interface"
> 
> Linux does #1, many systems do #2, both are correct.

Yes, both are "correct" in the sense that the RFC allows this
interpretation. The _sensible_ interpretation for practical networking
however is #2, and the only persons who seem to believe differently are
those in charge of the Linux network code...


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering          ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
SuSE Labs                               try again. fail again. fail better.
Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG           -- Samuel Beckett


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