From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271831AbTHRNSC (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:18:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271832AbTHRNSC (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:18:02 -0400 Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:2698 "HELO heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S271831AbTHRNR6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:17:58 -0400 X-Sender-Authentication: SMTPafterPOP by from 217.64.64.14 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:17:55 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: "David S. Miller" 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: <20030818151755.47096672.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030818055555.248f2a01.davem@redhat.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> <20030818053007.7852ca77.davem@redhat.com> <20030818145316.3a81f70c.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030818055555.248f2a01.davem@redhat.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-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 05:55:55 -0700 "David S. Miller" wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:53:16 +0200 > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > _And_ you did not explain so far why these implementations should > > not be RFC-conform or else illegal. > > Both responding and not responding on all interfaces for ARPs > is RFC conformant. This means both Linux and other systems > are within the rules. > > Under Linux, by default, IP addresses are owned by the system > not by interfaces. This increases the likelyhood of successful > communication on a subnet. In other words: it is more tolerant against broken setups. > For scenerios where this doesn't work, we have ways to make the > kernel behave the way you want it to. For sure. > There is no discussion about changing the default, because that > might break things for some people. So this discussion is pretty > useless. Ah yes. Maybe we are getting to the real point of the discussion. If I remember that right kernels 2.0 and 2.2 behave differently, so you are talking about setups for 2.4 kernels. I am very interested to hear what a valid setup looks like that is broken by the default behaviour of _other_ RFC-conformant implementations. That is exactly what you are telling us here. If you cannot describe such a setup, then you basically say you don't want to follow the mainstream because you want to keep broken setups going. I have heard things like that before from some well-known big company... Can't you simply state the true reason why you are playing shepherd for a dead cow? Regards, Stephan