From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
Subject: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:19:16 +0200
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20030819181916.4e636495.skraw@ithnet.com>
References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB57@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk>
	<070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: richard@aspectgroup.co.uk, davem@redhat.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: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <070c01c36653$7f3c1ab0$c801a8c0@llewella>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:11:59 +0200
"Bas Bloemsaat" <bloemsaa@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > The RFC I quoted (985) says the ARP packets generated by Linux
> > should be dropped. Sure, the RFC isn't a standard, but there ARE plenty of
> > implementations that obey it for perfectly valid security reasons.
> Same goes for 1180. It it doesn't define a standard either, but makes
> perfectly clear that any interface has it's own ARP, not one ARP for the
> entire system.

Does "has its own ARP" mean "has its own ARP-table"?
I just want to understand you correctly.

Regards,
Stephan