On Maw, 2003-08-19 at 15:34, Richard Underwood wrote: > # arp -d 172.24.0.80 > # ping -I 172.20.240.2 172.24.0.80 > > I see: > > 16:18:40.856328 arp who-has 172.24.0.80 tell 172.20.240.2 > 16:18:40.856431 arp reply 172.24.0.80 is-at 0:50:da:44:f:37 Fine > But if I was to do this in the other direction (arp -d 172.20.240.1; > ping -I 172.24.0.1 172.20.240.1) then I'd lose connectivity over my default > route because 172.20.240.1 won't accept ARP packets from IP numbers not on > the connected subnet. The <incomplete> ARP entry will block any further ARP > requests from valid IP numbers. One thing I agree with you about is that an ARP resolution for an address via one path should not block a resolution for it by another path since to begin with the two paths may be to different routers one of which is down. - : 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
