From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Underwood <richard@aspectgroup.co.uk>, <skraw@ithnet.com>,
<willy@w.ods.org>, <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
<carlosev@newipnet.com>, <lamont@scriptkiddie.org>,
<davidsen@tmr.com>, <bloemsaa@xs4all.nl>,
<marcelo@conectiva.com.br>, <netdev@oss.sgi.com>,
<linux-net@vger.kernel.org>, <layes@loran.com>,
<torvalds@osdl.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: host vs interface address ownership [Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:18:09 +0300 (EEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308200809280.32417-100000@netcore.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030819095611.0fb8f9a3.davem@redhat.com>
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:02:20 +0100
> Richard Underwood <richard@aspectgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > David S. Miller wrote:
> > > Under Linux, by default, IP addresses are owned by the system
> > > not by interfaces. This increases the likelyhood of successful
> > > communication on a subnet.
> > >
> > This is crap.
>
> Nope, the RFCs allow this.
>
> So this is where we must agree to disagree. Because host ownership of
> IP addresses is the basis for all of the arguments and it completely
> justifies Linux's ARP behavior on both sides.
Maybe I'm missing something -- I'm not sure what exactly you're including
in the models -- but wouldn't it be possible to implement the "host
ownership" model so that it would STILL honor any RFC out there (and
similarly for "interface ownership")?
For example, many IETF documents may state things like:
The
Home Agents List MAY be implemented in any manner consistent with the
external behavior described in this document.
.. 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.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-20 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-19 12:02 [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Richard Underwood
2003-08-19 12:35 ` Alan Cox
2003-08-19 18:30 ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-08-19 18:29 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-19 19:12 ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-08-19 19:10 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 16:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-20 17:00 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 17:44 ` Ben Greear
2003-08-20 17:48 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 21:34 ` [RFC][2.4 PATCH] source address selection for ARP requests Willy Tarreau
2003-08-20 21:47 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 22:27 ` Willy Tarreau
2003-08-20 22:35 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 22:59 ` Willy Tarreau
2003-08-20 23:18 ` [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Julian Anastasov
2003-08-23 20:50 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-20 19:08 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-20 20:07 ` Bas Bloemsaat
2003-08-19 19:17 ` Discussion fucking closed WAS(Re: " jamal
2003-08-19 19:42 ` bill davidsen
2003-08-20 5:31 ` ARP and knowledge of IP addresses [Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices] Pekka Savola
2003-08-19 13:11 ` [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Bas Bloemsaat
2003-08-19 15:34 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-19 17:39 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-08-19 17:36 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-19 21:01 ` Harley Stenzel
2003-08-19 16:19 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-08-19 16:54 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-19 17:15 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-08-19 16:56 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-20 5:18 ` Pekka Savola [this message]
2003-08-20 5:38 ` host vs interface address ownership [Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices] Valdis.Kletnieks
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0308200809280.32417-100000@netcore.fi \
--to=pekkas@netcore.fi \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bloemsaa@xs4all.nl \
--cc=carlosev@newipnet.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=lamont@scriptkiddie.org \
--cc=layes@loran.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-net@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=richard@aspectgroup.co.uk \
--cc=skraw@ithnet.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=willy@w.ods.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).