From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: RFC3069, private VLAN proxy arp support Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:03:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4B4427CE.1040203@gmail.com> References: <20100105155047.13309.79610.stgit@firesoul.comx.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Return-path: Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:34834 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750904Ab0AFGEC (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:04:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100105155047.13309.79610.stgit@firesoul.comx.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 05/01/2010 16:50, Jesper Dangaard Brouer a =C3=A9crit : > This is to be used together with switch technologies, like RFC3069, > that where the individual ports are not allowed to communicate with > each other, but they are allowed to talk to the upstream router. As > described in RFC 3069, it is possible to allow these hosts to > communicate through the upstream router by proxy_arp'ing. >=20 Reading RFC 3069, I dont understand why it needs support on hosts thems= elves. > This patch basically allow proxy arp replies back to the same > interface (from which the ARP request/solicitation was received). Could you give me an example of how it is used ? Last time I played with proxy arp was 6 years ago :) Thanks