From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:10:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20051205200959.GF24764@tuxdriver.com> References: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> <200512031646.45332.a1426z@gawab.com> <4391E4FC.1040200@candelatech.com> <20051205140057.GC24764@tuxdriver.com> <20051205174010.GA14101@buici.com> <43948049.3040508@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marc Singer , Al Boldi , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Ben Greear Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43948049.3040508@candelatech.com> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:00:41AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Marc Singer wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:01:00AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > >>The association between IP addresses and links is already a bit murky. > >>Reference the arp_announce sysctl for what I mean. I recall Dave M. > >>emphasizing on at least one occassion that IP addresses belong to > >>the _box_, not to the link. > >Precisely the case. It should be the case that a box response to an > >arp on *any* interface for *any* IP address known to the box. > > I certainly don't mind if this is a configurable, or even default > behaviour, but we also need the ability to only respond to particular It was not my intention to derail this discussion to the arp_announce topic. I only cited it as an example where the IP address <-> interface mapping is not 100% absolute. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com