Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:17:55 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices |
| |
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:55:55 -0700 "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:16 +0200 > Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> 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 cow?
Regards, Stephan - 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/
| |