Alan Cox wrote: > > 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. Alan, I can't believe that you're advocating networking code where: 1) It's not predictable - the route of a packet depends on the ARP reply generated due to a previous packet. 2) Linux will fail to communicate with the vast majority of routers under some, fairly basic, conditions. I'm certain that Cisco (for example) won't change their ways. I can't blame them, either - no one else does it this way and there's no good reason for doing it like this either. I think I'm going to give up at this point because I know I'm not going to get anywhere. A simple static ARP entry will fix my problems, although I'd prefer a more generic solution. Good luck! Richard - : 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
