[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121062349.GC4347@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:23:49 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Salam Noureddine <noureddine@...stanetworks.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issue with gratuitous arps when new addr is different from cached addr
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:06:34PM -0800, Salam Noureddine wrote:
> Isn't locktime useful in that case for limiting the rate of garp
> changes to the arp cache?
Yes, as I said, it would be nice to have rate-limiting for those, too.
GARP is used in cluster setups to make the switch-over as fast as possible and
I don't think they accept those lock-down delays, so I guess it would be nice
to forceful override the lladdr if (sip == tip) && ACCEPT_ARP(dev) is true in
every case.
I guess you are not testing with ACCEPT_ARP?
In that case I am not sure what to do.
override = (...timing...) || sip == tip; could work but does relax the
protection of the neigh cache.
In IPv6 we have a flag in the packet if we should overwrite the entry.
I'll have to think about that a bit more. Could well be the case that we need
your proposal, too. But then we would have to validate the change with IPv6,
too and neighbour cache states are really complex.
Greetings,
Hannes
--
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