Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IFA_F_NO

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IFA_F_NO_NDISC\s+$for\s+vrrp$\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:53:49 +0800; Keeping the policy decision in user-space is a wise solution. But you may just set NOARP flag for the device and do all the stuff in user-land merging your 'virtual MAC' logic with any ARP daemon. B; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00081.html (8,986 bytes)
2. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:13:22 -0400; I am not sure i understand your suggestion. I made some tests, and if IFF_NOARP is set i dont receive any messages on a listening NETLINK_ARPD socket. I need 2 things: - the kernel to keep a arp cach; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00098.html (9,722 bytes)
3. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:25:28 +0800; Oh, I see. My quick thoughts appear to be wrong. Julian Anastasov also wanted some solution to block ARP replies for his cluster project. Julian, I don't remember exactly your situation. May the pro; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00102.html (10,458 bytes)
4. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:47:31 +0300 (EEST); Yes, but only "some" :) Jerome Etienne, can you look at the Linux Virtual Server (LVS) project: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/arp.html Look for "Direct Route" f; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00106.html (14,707 bytes)
5. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:03:23 -0400; Indeed, vrrp and lvs are similar but still distinct. LVS modifies the two peers of the connection (dispatcher and server). VRRP is designed to work without the client being aware of it. The primary g; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00109.html (13,205 bytes)
6. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:29:47 +0800; I think it is a very good solution. This area just needs certain cleanup to allow all the decisions to be made in user-space. I'm not very familiar with "neighbour" code and I can't point to the rig; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00115.html (9,951 bytes)
7. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:57:57 +0300 (EEST); Very good. But I don't know why you think this is a difference. This is possible with LVS too. The client uses the same VIP as dest addr. The difference is the Virtual MAC. The transition is not so; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00116.html (21,400 bytes)
8. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:14:01 +0800; I haven't added anything radically new. Just ported to to the recent kernels. I'm going to merge it into the mainstream kernel, but not right now. There is a discussion between me and Alexey Kuznetso; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00117.html (10,224 bytes)
9. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:15:07 +0200; rusty promised a "shared-state for Netfilter conntrack" vs beer exchange at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, so I assume this problem can be solved ;-); /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00118.html (9,492 bytes)
10. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:56:34 +0300 (EEST); I want to ask you about arp_solicit. Is inet_addr_type() going to die? I see it is still used. My question is: can arp_solicit continue to use inet_addr_type() as in the current kernel and not to ca; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00119.html (11,545 bytes)
11. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:11:59 +0800; I suppose, the kernel looked only in local table only for optimization purposes under assumption that nobody wanted to insert local addresses in other tables. But it is very necessary for source rou; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00120.html (11,186 bytes)
12. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:03:44 +0300 (EEST); Yep, may be there are cases where local routes can be specified not in the "local" table. But if we don't change the call in arp_solicit() from inet_addr_type() to fib_local_source(), we will use IP; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00123.html (14,476 bytes)
13. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:53:19 -0400; no, because this connection tracking doesnt exist in vrrp and is specific to LVS. vrrp and lvs dont have the same aim. no, it is configured only in the master and always with IFA_F_NO_NDISC i dunno w; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00124.html (16,164 bytes)
14. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:29:48 +0300 (EEST); Oh, well. I reread the rfc. I read mostly the MUSTs first time and didn't understand the difference in your tests. Now I understand. OK Already done. Look in arp_solicit (2.2). I'm talking about sel; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00127.html (13,143 bytes)
15. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:35:18 -0400; how do you need to control them ?; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00128.html (9,351 bytes)
16. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:33:58 +0300 (EEST); One of the ways is by using the hidden flag. You can see how it is handled in arp_solicit in 2.2: if (skb && (dev2 = ip_dev_find(skb->nh.iph->saddr)) != NULL && (in_dev2 = dev2->ip_ptr) != NULL && !; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00131.html (9,289 bytes)
17. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:23:48 +0300 (EEST); Hello Andrey, Agree. Without calling fib_local_source() the situation is different. This leads arp_solicit to use limited number of local addresses in some situations and may be will allow not to inc; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00152.html (11,071 bytes)
18. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:59:38 +0800; Hello Julian, Using inet_addr_type() in arp_solicit(), especially the current one looking into local table only, is wrong from conceptual point of view. It makes decisions that can't be explained in; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00161.html (10,758 bytes)
19. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:53:49 +0800; Hello, Keeping the policy decision in user-space is a wise solution. But you may just set NOARP flag for the device and do all the stuff in user-land merging your 'virtual MAC' logic with any ARP dae; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00380.html (9,040 bytes)
20. Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) (score: 1): Author: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:13:22 -0400; I am not sure i understand your suggestion. I made some tests, and if IFF_NOARP is set i dont receive any messages on a listening NETLINK_ARPD socket. I need 2 things: - the kernel to keep a arp cach; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00397.html (9,844 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]