| To: | "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:54:54 -0700 |
| 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: | <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> |
| References: | <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:11:59 +0200 "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The RFC I quoted (985) says the ARP packets generated by Linux > > should be dropped. Sure, the RFC isn't a standard, but there ARE plenty of > > implementations that obey it for perfectly valid security reasons. > > Same goes for 1180. It it doesn't define a standard either, but makes > perfectly clear that any interface has it's own ARP, not one ARP for the > entire system. Which is all irrelevant because the IPv4 RFCs say that host based and interface based address ownership are both valid system models. Any document saying that they must be per-interface is therefore invalid. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, Stephan von Krawczynski |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, Stephan von Krawczynski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |