On Wednesday 24 November 2004 16:19, Illtud Daniel wrote: > eth0 on this machine was responding to ARP requests for 10.0.0.1 > with the MAC address of eth1. My LTSP clients were then attempting > to TFTP or NFS to that MAC address, and hanging (since it wasn't > on the LAN). > Is this expected behaviour? Shouldn't interfaces keep > schtum about each other for fear of leaking information across > networks? I've tried to google, and I've searched the kernel docs, > but I can't find anything that would answer the question: is this > right? This is the default, but can be altered by writing 1 to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/arp_filter This has caused me lots and lots of problems, in the past, too, with an LTSP setup. It was a slightly different setup, with both eth0 and eth1 plugged into the same switch(!), but essentially the same problem. Read /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt. Search for arp_filter. There was a discussion somewhere about wether this is RFC compliant. The short answer was: yes. > One lesson I've learnt is that you don't use the obvious ranges > when assigning private IP addresses. -- Regards, Berend - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
