| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bas Bloemsaat <bloemsaa@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| From: | Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:39:20 +0200 |
| Cc: | richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, skraw@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: | <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On 2003-08-19T08:34:38,
"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> There are two valid ways the RFCs allow systems to handle
> IP addresses.
>
> 1) IP addresses are owned by "the host"
> 2) IP addresses are owned by "the interface"
>
> Linux does #1, many systems do #2, both are correct.
Yes, both are "correct" in the sense that the RFC allows this
interpretation. The _sensible_ interpretation for practical networking
however is #2, and the only persons who seem to believe differently are
those in charge of the Linux network code...
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
--
High Availability & Clustering ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
SuSE Labs try again. fail again. fail better.
Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG -- Samuel Beckett
|
| 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, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |