David S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
I have been asking for a similar thing as well, David mentioned some
things that would break, but I believe they break if you use source
routing, so that seems not to be a real objection.
It's not about source routing. It's about failover and being
able to use ARP on interfaces which don't have addresses assigned
to them yet.
[snip]
BTW, another thing which makes the source address selection for
outgoing ARPs a real touchy area is the following. Some weird
configurations actually respond with different ARP answers based upon
the source address in the ARP request. You can ask Julian Anastasov
about such (arguably pathological) setups.
It seems that these reasons would not preclude the addition of a flag
that would default to the current behaviour but allow the behaviour that
other setups desire easily? That seems to be all that folks are really
arguing for. If/when the user enabled this new flag, then they should
be fully responsible for the change in behaviour, and they can deal with
it as needed.
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
|