From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: <43948049.3040508@candelatech.com> References: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> <200512031646.45332.a1426z@gawab.com> <4391E4FC.1040200@candelatech.com> <20051205140057.GC24764@tuxdriver.com> <20051205174010.GA14101@buici.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Al Boldi , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Marc Singer In-Reply-To: <20051205174010.GA14101@buici.com> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Marc Singer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:01:00AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > >>On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:33:32AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: >> >>>Al Boldi wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a >>>>link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing layer >>>>3 inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be defined w/o a >>>>link/dev much like an app is allowed to be defined w/o an address. >>> >>>[Removed lkml from CC list] >>> >>>You can add multiple virtual IP addresses to physical interfaces. It >>>makes no sense to have an IP without any association to an interface >>>in my opinion. Often, when you have multiple interfaces, you most >>>definately >>>want different IPs associated specifically with particular interfaces. >>>Think about redundant paths, routers, firewalls, and such. >> >>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. >> >>I think Al B.'s idea merits some consideration. I definitely think >>we blur the distinctions between L2 and L3 a bit too much in places. >> >>Of course, patches would be helpful... > > > 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. 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. > As for changing the behavior, I haven't seen a compelling reason to > change it. IMHO, without a motivating case, we would be mucking about > without a clear goal. Agreed. Thanks, Ben > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com