From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ipv4: arp announce, arp_proxy and windows ip conflict verification" Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090630.201016.203484460.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200903011344.45814.denys@visp.net.lb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, denys@visp.net.lb, stable@kernel.org To: ebiederm@xmission.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:51947 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752808AbZGADKM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:10:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:27:17 -0700 > This reverts commit 73ce7b01b4496a5fbf9caf63033c874be692333f. > > After discovering that we don't listen to gratuitious arps in 2.6.30 > I tracked the failure down to this commit. > > The patch makes absolutely no sense. RFC2131 RFC3927 and RFC5227. > are all in agreement that an arp request with sip == 0 should be used > for the probe (to prevent learning) and an arp request with sip == tip > should be used for the gratitous announcement that people can learn > from. > > It appears the author of the broken patch got those two cases confused > and modified the code to drop all gratuitous arp traffic. Ouch! > > Cc: stable@kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Eric. To be honest I didn't want to apply that patch, but it seemed to match up with the RFC in question so I figured I had no arguments against it :)