From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Heffner Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:03:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4394C726.80902@psc.edu> References: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> <200512031646.45332.a1426z@gawab.com> <4391E4FC.1040200@candelatech.com> <20051205140057.GC24764@tuxdriver.com> <20051205174010.GA14101@buici.com> <43947FEB.7020504@unfix.org> <4394BCD5.1060505@psc.edu> <4394BF11.2070205@hp.com> <4394BF9E.90303@psc.edu> <4394C2A9.6000606@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeroen Massar , Marc Singer , Ben Greear , Al Boldi , linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4394C2A9.6000606@hp.com> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rick Jones wrote: > John Heffner wrote: >> Yes, but if an interface will accept packets for a certain IP address, >> and will send packets with that IP address, is there any reason it >> can't ARP for that address? > > > If ARP RFC's say it shouldn't :) (I don't know that it does) ARP is ARP, > accepting IPs is IP. The maze of twisty passages may be similar, but > they are distinct. I actually think it would be out of scope for an ARP RFC to specify this (and none I'm aware of do). It really is an IP layer decision. That is, the decision naturally extends beyond the scope of ARP, applying also to layer 2 devices which don't even do ARP. > Is a MAC address a property of the host, or of the interface connected > to the host? Depends on whether you run your interfaces in promiscuous mode, and send frames with different MAC addresses from one interface. ;-) -John