From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261243AbTHSTeI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:34:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261316AbTHSTZT (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:25:19 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:45709 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261305AbTHSTXy (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:23:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:16:03 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: "Bas Bloemsaat" Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, skraw@ithnet.com, willy@w.ods.org, richard@aspectgroup.co.uk, carlosev@newipnet.com, lamont@scriptkiddie.org, davidsen@tmr.com, 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: <20030819121603.1cc70937.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <091f01c36686$dade2bf0$c801a8c0@llewella> References: <353568DCBAE06148B70767C1B1A93E625EAB58@post.pc.aspectgroup.co.uk> <20030819145403.GA3407@alpha.home.local> <20030819170751.2b92ba2e.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030819085717.56046afd.davem@redhat.com> <20030819185219.116fd259.skraw@ithnet.com> <1061319864.30565.52.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030819120131.1999b1ec.davem@redhat.com> <091f01c36686$dade2bf0$c801a8c0@llewella> 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 Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:19:44 +0200 "Bas Bloemsaat" wrote: > > Indeed, would people stop quoting from RFC 985 and > > RFC 826. > > RFC 826 is referenced from 1009 as describing ARP. So in effect it does > define a standard. The RFC 826 document clearly says, at the top, "This is not an Internet Standard" It does not define a standard. And given that it really isn't surprising it has errors in it as we've clearly shown in these threads. The authors of said document didn't scuritinize it to the level it would need to be in order to truly be a standards document people must follow to have a conformant implementation.