lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux ARP
    the arp rfc can be found at
    ftp://venera.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc826.txt but it won't get
    you a definite solution to your question-- it's severely
    outdated...

    "Alternatively, network mail can be sent to DCP@MIT-MC."

    ...that's how old the arp rfc is!

    I won't say 'right', since it's only there to make
    poorly-configured machines work right...but it won't break
    anything and it's often done...

    is this breaking something on your network, or are you just
    wondering about it?

    the words network and subnet aren't interchangable-- arp
    should be able to flow freely from one part of an ethernet
    network to another (if thje requests/responses truly belong
    there -- switching is very useful:)

    the sticky point is whether machines should be allowed to
    respond to arp requests for machines which aren't on the
    same physical network.

    i.e. whether machines should be able to lie and say "hey,
    i'm part of the local network", when they aren't

    in a perfect network, only the machines arped for will
    respond...

    as a natural consequence of that, machines not on the
    physical network can't respond

    Brian [signal@shreve.net] wrote:
    >
    > Is linux's ARP implementation RFC compliant? I am still looking for the
    > ARP rfc........but the way I remember it, a machine shouldn't respond to
    > an ARP request unless the requesting ip and the requested ip are on the
    > same network:
    >
    > I have a linux box as eth0 208.206.76.5, and eth0:1 207.138.69.69
    >
    > tcpdump arp (on the 208.206.76.5 machine, while I ping from 208.206.76.1)
    >
    > 21:51:24.208529 eth0 B arp who-has 207.138.69.69 tell 208.206.76.1
    > 21:51:24.208562 eth0 > arp reply 207.138.69.69 (0:40:5:a3:59:25) is-at 0:40:5:a3:59:25 (0:50:54:7f:63:c0)
    >
    >
    > 208.206.76.1 does not have any interfaces in 207.138.69.x. it is a cisco
    > router with an ethernet address 208.206.76.1, and a route statment:
    >
    > ip route 207.137.69.0 255.255.255.0 e0
    >
    > is it right for it to respond?
    >
    >
    > -----------------------------------------------------
    > Brian Feeny (BF304) signal@shreve.net
    > 318-222-2638 x 109 http://www.shreve.net/~signal
    > Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
    >
    >
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    --
    Soren

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.028 / U:66.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site