From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Singer Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:03:29 -0800 Message-ID: <20051205210329.GC20824@buici.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: 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: > >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 > arps on particular interfaces, based on the IP addresses assigned > to those interfaces. Why? The routing determines connectivity, not ARP. AFAIK, ARP requests are not made on interfaces that lack that the network being queried. If I put a host with an address on network 12 onto an ethernet segment for network 10 and then ARP for addresses on network 10, I ought to be able to send packets to those hosts (baring a firewal). However, I won't be able to get anything back because those hosts don't know how to send to network 12. Misconfiguration? Yes. Non-compliant? No. > I am able to get this particular arp binding working today, so I'm > not suggesting changes, just mentioning that there are other > configurations than what you mention that are useful to people. Anyway, I haven't seen a good reason to change the current behavior. While the above described functionality is missing, no one has made a case to support it.