From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271687AbTHRMhc (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:37:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271692AbTHRMhU (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:37:20 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:10221 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271687AbTHRMhP (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:37:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:30:07 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: Stephan von Krawczynski Cc: 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: Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices Message-Id: <20030818053007.7852ca77.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20030818143401.1352d158.skraw@ithnet.com> References: <20030728213933.F81299@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> <200308171509570955.003E4FEC@192.168.128.16> <200308171516090038.0043F977@192.168.128.16> <1061127715.21885.35.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <200308171555280781.0067FB36@192.168.128.16> <1061134091.21886.40.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <200308171759540391.00AA8CAB@192.168.128.16> <1061137577.21885.50.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <200308171827130739.00C3905F@192.168.128.16> <1061141045.21885.74.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030817224849.GB734@alpha.home.local> <20030817223118.3cbc497c.davem@redhat.com> <20030818133957.3d3d51d2.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030818044419.0bc24d14.davem@redhat.com> <20030818143401.1352d158.skraw@ithnet.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.2 (GTK+ 1.2.6; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:34:01 +0200 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > what is the _positive_ outcome of this > implementation compared to others? If you're not willing to think I can't help you resolve the questions you have. If you don't understand source address selection, than it's not possible for me to have an intellegent conversation about this topic. So you need to make this crucial first step.