Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 6 May 2001 12:35:39 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mark Hahn <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arp_filter patch for 2.4.4 kernel. |
| |
> > also -- isn't it kind of wrong for arp to respond with addresses from > > other interfaces? > > Usually it makes sense, because it increases your chances of successfull > communication. IP addresses are owned by the complete host on Linux, not by > different interfaces.
this is one of those things that is still hurting Linux's credibility in the read world. people see this kind of obviously broken behavior, and install *BSD or Solaris instead.
isn't this clearly a case of the kernel being too smart: making it impossible for a clueful admin to do what he needs? multi-nic machines are now quite common, but this "feature" makes them far less useful, since the stack is violating the admin's intention.
> For some weirder setups (most of them just caused by incorrect routing > tables, but also a few legimitate ones; including incoming load balancing > via multipath routes) it causes problems, so arpfilter was invented to > sync ARP replies with the routing tables as needed.
there's NOTHING weird about a machine having two nics and two IPs, wanting to behave like two hosts.
is there any positive/beneficial reason for the current behavior?
- 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/
|  |