| To: | Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Restrict local IP announcements in ARP requests |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:10:53 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402100049470.1251@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402081149001.6268@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040209140853.69ab8bea.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402100049470.1251@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:06:15 +0200 (EET) Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> wrote: > As for IPVS like setups, the requirements need per IP tunning which > is possible only with some kind of filtering, not a global flag, > especially for the input device. Note that the "hidden" flag > is checked for the target device, this was the only way to > differentiate by device. May be this is a proof arp_announce is > not for IPVS :) It is mostly to work with other stacks because > I'm flooded with emails about how Linux ARP can be more friendly. So this new 'arp_announce' change suggestion will preempt any need for hidden and make everyone happy? About output_route vs. inet_select_addr(), probably the latter is better. Your goal is to differentiate between primary and seconday addrs on a device right? Route lookup is also more expensive, probably. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Restrict local IP announcements in ARP requests, Julian Anastasov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH], David Stevens |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Restrict local IP announcements in ARP requests, Julian Anastasov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Restrict local IP announcements in ARP requests, Julian Anastasov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |