netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp)

To: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp)
From: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:56:34 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000609141401.A17352@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Hello,

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:57:57AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > > which patch are you speaking about ?
> > 
> >     I looked it one month ago:
> > 
> > ftp://ftp.sw.com.sg/pub/Linux/people/saw/kernel/v2.3/route.generic
> > 
> >     I  see it  is not changed  from long time  ago and I
> > don't know its status. Andrey?
> 
> 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 Kuznetsov about some points
> of the patch.  It hasn't been finished yet because of a lack of time on both
> sides.  On the other hand, 2.4.0test isn't the right moment to introduce such
> patches :-)

        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 call
fib_local_source()?  You still can  call fib_select_addr. Is
there a good reason to change it?

        By this way we limit the local addresses that we can
announce  in our ARP probes. I'm not sure if this will break
something  but that will allow addresses not included in the
"local"  table not to  be announced. This  will help to hide
these addresses. But I agree, may be this is a hack. We will
allow to accept locally traffic for more IP addresses but to
send  probes  with  the preferred  addresses  from  the same
logical  network defined in the "local" table. For me, there
is  this difference:  why we  should allow  all IP addresses
which  we  treat  as local  in  the incoming  traffic  to be
treated  as local in the outgoing traffic. If we want to use
them  as source in the ARP probes we can include them in the
"local"  table.   Is that  sounds  reasonable? The  user can
select  which addresses to hide by not including them in the
"local"  table.  This is the only difference we can make for
the  ARP and the  other traffic by using  only FIB calls. We
still  can talk with this IP,  we only change ARP behaviour.
If  we don't want to talk  IP with these hidden addresses we
can completely remove them from all tables.


Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>