| To: | Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| From: | Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:07:51 +0200 |
| Cc: | richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidsen@xxxxxxx, bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030819145403.GA3407@alpha.home.local> |
| Organization: | ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH |
| References: | <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB58@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk> <20030819145403.GA3407@alpha.home.local> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:54:03 +0200 Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is exactly the case I calmly discussed privately with David then Alexey. > Both explained me that in fact, the remote host shouldn't be filtering the > ARP requests based on the source IP they provide, Hm, what rule is broken by the remote host, then? I mean "remote host shouln't" reads like "according to RFC-XYZ he should not". IFF of course the remote host is not broken, then our idea must be broken. Else world would have kind of a definition gap in this layer of networking, and I hardly believe that. Regards, Stephan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, Willy Tarreau |
|---|---|
| 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, Willy Tarreau |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |