From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:36:13 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030819103613.4485e549.davem@redhat.com> References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@redhat.com> <20030819173920.GA3301@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bloemsaa@xs4all.nl, richard@aspectgroup.co.uk, skraw@ithnet.com, willy@w.ods.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, carlosev@newipnet.com, lamont@scriptkiddie.org, davidsen@tmr.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, layes@loran.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Lars Marowsky-Bree In-Reply-To: <20030819173920.GA3301@marowsky-bree.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:39:20 +0200 Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2003-08-19T08:34:38, > "David S. Miller" said: > > > There are two valid ways the RFCs allow systems to handle > > IP addresses. > > > > 1) IP addresses are owned by "the host" > > 2) IP addresses are owned by "the interface" > > > > Linux does #1, many systems do #2, both are correct. > > Yes, both are "correct" in the sense that the RFC allows this > interpretation. The _sensible_ interpretation for practical networking > however is #2, and the only persons who seem to believe differently are > those in charge of the Linux network code... And, as Alan said, we provide a way for one to obtain your networking religion of week. Changing the default is not an option, that would undoubtedly break things.