[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Alan Cox" <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Carlos Velasco" <carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
From: "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:59:52 +0200
Cc: "Lamont Granquist" <lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@xxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Marcelo Tosatti" <marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <layes@xxxxxxxxx>, <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <> <> <200308171509570955.003E4FEC@> <200308171516090038.0043F977@> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Proxy ARP only.
> >    A.3.  ARP datagram
> >
> >       An ARP reply is discarded if the destination IP address does not
> >       match the local host address.
> Linux counts all the IP addresses it has as being local host address.
> And Linux btw has arpfilter which can do far more than just imitate your
> favourite network religion of the week

I think the whole mess comes from the ambigious use of the word host in RFC
826, and several possible interpretations. It can mean both ethernet host
(i.e. a NIC) or internet host (i.e. the whole server). This isn't clear from
the RFC. In fact, the meanings are mixed. It's not a good RFC.

The linux way is a perfectly legal, if somewhat awkward, way to interpret
the RFC. Me too, I'd like a device respond only to ARP requests that are
meant for an IP bound to it, but please, let's not turn this into a holy


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