| To: | Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp) |
| From: | Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:33:58 +0300 (EEST) |
| Cc: | Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20000609123518.A2012@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello,
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jerome Etienne wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 07:29:48PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Good luck! IFA_F_NO_NDISC is not a complete solution
> > for LVS. The "hidden" flag has other semantic and the goal
> > is to mark part of the local addresses as shared (hidden).
> > This is different from IFA_F_NO_NDISC. We need to control
> > which addresses can be announced in the ARP probes too.
>
> how do you need to control them ?
>
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 &&
!IN_DEV_HIDDEN(in_dev2))
saddr = skb->nh.iph->saddr;
else
saddr = inet_select_addr(dev, target, RT_SCOPE_LINK);
But it is not looking good in 2.3.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Slow TCP connection between linux and wince, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | 2.4 kernel networking and SMP, Jacob Avraham |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp), Jerome Etienne |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2 bugs] iptable_nat module makes a black hole for GRE packets, iptables only plays with ICMP/UDP/TCP, Rusty Russell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |