From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Courtier-Dutton Subject: Re: gratuitous arp Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:05:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4568F663.7090805@superbug.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]:42760 "EHLO anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967140AbWKZCF0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:05:26 -0500 To: dean gaudet In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org dean gaudet wrote: > hi... > > i ran into some problems recently which would have been avoided if my box > did a gratuitous arp as it brought up all interfaces (the router took > forever to timeout the ARP entries for interface aliases). so i set about > looking to see why that wasn't happening. > > i either missed it, or there's no code in the kernel to do it -- but > that's cool, because it's easy enough to do from userland. i'm guessing > this is the intention. > > however my debian and ubuntu boxes aren't doing grat arp and don't seem to > have options to do it (i do know about using various other tools such as > arping, send_arp, garp to do it manually). > > before i go opening bugs with the distribution folks, could someone chime > in as to what is the recommended approach these days? did grat arp fall > out of favour, or is it just a case of userland not keeping up? > > thanks > -dean Are you 100% sure about this? Have you done a packet sniff on the network? A lot of routers ignore gratuitous arp for security reasons. James