| To: | "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| From: | Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:19:16 +0200 |
| Cc: | richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, carlosev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidsen@xxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, layes@xxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> |
| Organization: | ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH |
| References: | <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:11:59 +0200 "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The RFC I quoted (985) says the ARP packets generated by Linux > > should be dropped. Sure, the RFC isn't a standard, but there ARE plenty of > > implementations that obey it for perfectly valid security reasons. > Same goes for 1180. It it doesn't define a standard either, but makes > perfectly clear that any interface has it's own ARP, not one ARP for the > entire system. Does "has its own ARP" mean "has its own ARP-table"? I just want to understand you correctly. Regards, Stephan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| 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, Harley Stenzel |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |