From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Bas Bloemsaat" Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:59:52 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <00fa01c364c7$e2c6ba50$c801a8c0@llewella> References: <20030728213933.F81299@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> <200308171509570955.003E4FEC@192.168.128.16> <200308171516090038.0043F977@192.168.128.16> <1061127715.21885.35.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Lamont Granquist" , "Bill Davidsen" , "David S. Miller" , "Marcelo Tosatti" , , , , , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Return-path: To: "Alan Cox" , "Carlos Velasco" Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Proxy ARP only. > > > A.3. ARP datagram > > > > An ARP reply is discarded if the destination IP address does not > > match the local host address. > > Linux counts all the IP addresses it has as being local host address. > > And Linux btw has arpfilter which can do far more than just imitate your > favourite network religion of the week > I think the whole mess comes from the ambigious use of the word host in RFC 826, and several possible interpretations. It can mean both ethernet host (i.e. a NIC) or internet host (i.e. the whole server). This isn't clear from the RFC. In fact, the meanings are mixed. It's not a good RFC. The linux way is a perfectly legal, if somewhat awkward, way to interpret the RFC. Me too, I'd like a device respond only to ARP requests that are meant for an IP bound to it, but please, let's not turn this into a holy war. Regards, Bas