From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: when using arp monitoring with bonding, why use broadcast arps? Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:20:56 -0800 Message-ID: <17022.1196792456@death> References: <47558DFC.5050601@nortel.com> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Chris Friesen" Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:33694 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750896AbXLDSVO (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:21:14 -0500 In-reply-to: <47558DFC.5050601@nortel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chris Friesen wrote: [...] >Is there any particular reason why the bonding code couldn't use unicast >arp packets if the "arp_ip_target" has a valid entry in the sender's arp >table? It ought to be a pretty straightforward change to have the bond_arp_send() function perform a neigh_lookup() prior to calling arp_create(), and use the result of the lookup (if any) in the arp_create() call. So, no, with the caveat that I haven't tried it, I don't see a reason that bonding couldn't do what you're looking for. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com