On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:55:55 -0700
"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:16 +0200
> Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > _And_ you did not explain so far why these implementations should
> > not be RFC-conform or else illegal.
>
> Both responding and not responding on all interfaces for ARPs
> is RFC conformant. This means both Linux and other systems
> are within the rules.
>
> Under Linux, by default, IP addresses are owned by the system
> not by interfaces. This increases the likelyhood of successful
> communication on a subnet.
In other words: it is more tolerant against broken setups.
> For scenerios where this doesn't work, we have ways to make the
> kernel behave the way you want it to.
For sure.
> There is no discussion about changing the default, because that
> might break things for some people. So this discussion is pretty
> useless.
Ah yes. Maybe we are getting to the real point of the discussion. If I remember
that right kernels 2.0 and 2.2 behave differently, so you are talking about
setups for 2.4 kernels. I am very interested to hear what a valid setup looks
like that is broken by the default behaviour of _other_ RFC-conformant
implementations. That is exactly what you are telling us here.
If you cannot describe such a setup, then you basically say you don't want to
follow the mainstream because you want to keep broken setups going.
I have heard things like that before from some well-known big company...
Can't you simply state the true reason why you are playing shepherd for a dead
cow?
Regards,
Stephan
|