[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:55:55 -0700
"David S. Miller" <> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:16 +0200
> Stephan von Krawczynski <> wrote:
> > _And_ you did not explain so far why these implementations should
> > not be RFC-conform or else illegal.
> Both responding and not responding on all interfaces for ARPs
> is RFC conformant. This means both Linux and other systems
> are within the rules.
> Under Linux, by default, IP addresses are owned by the system
> not by interfaces. This increases the likelyhood of successful
> communication on a subnet.

In other words: it is more tolerant against broken setups.

> For scenerios where this doesn't work, we have ways to make the
> kernel behave the way you want it to.

For sure.

> There is no discussion about changing the default, because that
> might break things for some people. So this discussion is pretty
> useless.

Ah yes. Maybe we are getting to the real point of the discussion. If I remember
that right kernels 2.0 and 2.2 behave differently, so you are talking about
setups for 2.4 kernels. I am very interested to hear what a valid setup looks
like that is broken by the default behaviour of _other_ RFC-conformant
implementations. That is exactly what you are telling us here.
If you cannot describe such a setup, then you basically say you don't want to
follow the mainstream because you want to keep broken setups going.
I have heard things like that before from some well-known big company...
Can't you simply state the true reason why you are playing shepherd for a dead

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.354 / U:1.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site