Re: host vs interface address ownership [Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices]

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: host vs interface address ownership [Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:38:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308200538.h7K5c4g8021142@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:18:09 +0300." <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308200809280.32417-100000@netcore.fi>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:18:09 +0300, Pekka Savola said:

> .. which *seems* (without knowing which RFCs and sections of them you 
> refer to for justifying host/interface ownership) to be a probable intent 
> of allowing either model.  Just as long as the external behaviour is 
> consistent, you can implement it with any internal structure you wish.

Hmm.. depends what you mean by "consistent"... "you can implement the
insides either way as long as the outsides look the same", or "you can do it
either way, as long as you do it the same way throughout the network".

The problem is that the *externally visible* behavior is different depending on
whether you choose host or interface ownership, and either model can probably
be made to work if *the rest of the network plays along*.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]