Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:21:29 +0300 (EEST) | From | Sampsa Ranta <> | Subject | Re: Broken ARP (was Re: ARP responses broken!) |
| |
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Hello, > > Sampsa Ranta wrote: > > > The code I used to do the trick at my network was as simple as this, > > in function arp_rcv, the problem is ip_dev_find that does know if there > > are other devices with same IP address. > > I don't think this is your problem. You patch is not correct. > In fact, you implement the same function as in "hidden" but you are > missing some things. Please, read the "hidden" flag description in > the kernel docs. You must solve the case where your ARP probes are sent > always through one device due to your routing (this is out traffic, > yes?). These probes soon or later will cause you problems because > they change the entry in the remote hosts' ARP tables. You so carefully > tried to advertise the address on specific interface and now the other > hosts again talk to one card only. > > who-has 194.29.192.1 tell 194.29.192.38 > > and your are dead :) > > So, please try "hidden" before going into more problems with > these patches (I see two in this thread, and I saw so many before).
Are you referring to the arp_solicit()?
if (skb && inet_addr_type(skb->nh.iph->saddr) == RTN_LOCAL) saddr = skb->nh.iph->saddr; else saddr = inet_select_addr(dev, target, RT_SCOPE_LINK);
Why is this hidden flag removed in 2.4 series with replacing no functionality that would help to solve the problems?
- Sampsa Ranta sampsa@netsonic.fi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |