[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200907041055.24516.denys@visp.net.lb>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:55:24 +0300
From: Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arp announce, arp_proxy and windows ip conflict verification
On Saturday 04 July 2009 03:46:15 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb> writes:
> > On Friday 03 July 2009 23:20:05 David Miller wrote:
> >> I really never should have applied your initial patch, I severely
> >> regret it. Thanksfully it's reverted now and we can look into
> >> this issue more properly.
> >
> > If it was said before...
> >
> > Then maybe i will try to do some new sysctl value?
> >
> > By default it will be old behavior, but it can be changed to new on user
> > choice.
> >
> > Let's say
> >
> > net.ipv4.arp_proxy_gateway
> > net.ipv4.arp_proxy_gratuitous
>
> How do machines with addresses without routes to them
> get packets from machines in other subnets?
>
> Eric
ARP proxy generally was supposed to not export default route(by RFC and by
logic) it should be maybe other name, arp_proxy_no_default_gateway_export -
but i guess it is too long. With exporting default gateway i have two
choices - eat it and have answer to almost any ARP request, or loose for
proxy_arp completely this interface (by setting same medium id).
Btw usually proxy_arp "answers" only for directly attached networks, e.g. link
layer routes (no gateway), but sure this is not a rule, and sometimes it is
even useful to "proxy" gatewayed routes. I am concerned only about 0.0.0.0/0
route, which is equal to wildcard.
If i understand question correctly.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists