On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:31:18 -0700 "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:48:49 +0200 > Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:24:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > So stick the address on eth0 not on lo since its not a loopback but an > > > eth0 address, then use arpfilter so you don't arp for the invalid magic > > > shared IP address, or NAT it, or it may work to do > > > > > > ip route add nexthop-addr src my-virtual-addr dev eth0 scope > > > local onlink ip route add default src my-virtual-addr via > > > nexthop-addr dev eth0 scope global > > > > I have a case where this doesn't work > > Replying again... Alan does mention in the paragraph you've quoted > to use arpfilter, which works for every case imaginable. > > The facilities to solve these problems are there, people simply > don't want to use them. It would be probably a good thing if anybody ever found a _positive_ scenario where your view of the arp-world has _advantages_ compared to what the vast majority of people I ever talked to sees as _expected_ behaviour... (Please don't argue that my "vast majority" is not necessarily _the_ vast majority, because that is true for merely every human being on this planet and beyond) I mean everybody is willing to follow you if you could say: "look at these type of wide-spread operations and notice the positive (config shortening or whatever) influence of the current default behaviour." Can you please give us a striking example of a widespread application where current behaviour is a requirement or at least a very positive thing? Regards, Stephan - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
