From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:39:20 +0200 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030819173920.GA3301@marowsky-bree.de> References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk> <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella> <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: 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: "David S. Miller" , Bas Bloemsaat Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030819083438.26c985b9.davem@redhat.com> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 2003-08-19T08:34:38, "David S. Miller" said: > There are two valid ways the RFCs allow systems to handle > IP addresses. >=20 > 1) IP addresses are owned by "the host" > 2) IP addresses are owned by "the interface" >=20 > 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... Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering ever tried. ever failed. no matter. SuSE Labs try again. fail again. fail better. Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG -- Samuel Beckett