netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: per-route arp control

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: per-route arp control
From: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:27:35 -0400
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, ak@xxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105272334310.12611-300000@u.domain.uli>; from "Julian Anastasov" on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:41:59PM
References: <20010524175734.A23528@saw.sw.com.sg> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105272334310.12611-300000@u.domain.uli>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

> 2. Part two: source address selection for our probes
> 
> - semantic: "in our probes announce the preferred source address for
> the target if the original route in the skb is marked noarp"

I consider it superfluous, and I don't see any symmetry here :-)
If you maintain the proper configuration, i.e. specify preferred source for
output routes, you should be fine.

>       Sometimes we don't want to announce particular addresses, for
> example, if they are marked hidden/noarp in local routes - the symmetry.
> In this case we add noarp route and then fallback to the preferred
> source address no matter it is marked as hidden. The RTCF_NOARP flag
> in the output routes is checked in this case (arp_solicit):
> 
> ip rule from ...
> ip route add ... noarp
> 
>       Andrey, I see that in your current route.generic version
> arp_solicit always fallbacks to the preferred source address to the

As I've said that code wasn't completely correct.

For the remaining of your code and RTCF_NOARP additions look fine for me.

        Andrey

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