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

[Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Maw, 2003-08-19 at 15:34, Richard Underwood wrote:
> # arp -d 172.24.0.80
> # ping -I 172.20.240.2 172.24.0.80
> 
>       I see:
> 
> 16:18:40.856328 arp who-has 172.24.0.80 tell 172.20.240.2
> 16:18:40.856431 arp reply 172.24.0.80 is-at 0:50:da:44:f:37

Fine

>       But if I was to do this in the other direction (arp -d 172.20.240.1;
> ping -I 172.24.0.1 172.20.240.1) then I'd lose connectivity over my default
> route because 172.20.240.1 won't accept ARP packets from IP numbers not on
> the connected subnet. The <incomplete> ARP entry will block any further ARP
> requests from valid IP numbers.

One thing I agree with you about is that an ARP resolution for an
address via one path should not block a resolution for it by another
path since to begin with the two paths may be to different routers
one of which is down.