On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:12:46 +0200 Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:53:02 -0700 > "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote: > > > In the ARP request we are using the source address in the packet we > > are building for output. > > > > If ARP doesn't work using that source address, we can only assume IP > > communication is not possible either. > > > > It is the box not responding to this ARP which is preventing > > communication not the box creating the ARP request. > > Please read my example from other email. Very simple to prove you wrong here. Not really, the RFC you keep quoting is broken in several regards: 1) It is non-functional in environments containing systems using the host ownership model for IP addresses which the RFC standards fully allow. 2) It does not consider the cases where a host is not completely aware of all subnets present on a given link. This is actually quite common. Dropping such ARP requests can only be done when the the host is aware of all subnets that exist, which is cannot be possibly true. - : 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
