On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:00:41AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > >Precisely the case. It should be the case that a box response to an > >arp on *any* interface for *any* IP address known to the box. > > I certainly don't mind if this is a configurable, or even default > behaviour, but we also need the ability to only respond to particular > arps on particular interfaces, based on the IP addresses assigned > to those interfaces. Why? The routing determines connectivity, not ARP. AFAIK, ARP requests are not made on interfaces that lack that the network being queried. If I put a host with an address on network 12 onto an ethernet segment for network 10 and then ARP for addresses on network 10, I ought to be able to send packets to those hosts (baring a firewal). However, I won't be able to get anything back because those hosts don't know how to send to network 12. Misconfiguration? Yes. Non-compliant? No. > I am able to get this particular arp binding working today, so I'm > not suggesting changes, just mentioning that there are other > configurations than what you mention that are useful to people. Anyway, I haven't seen a good reason to change the current behavior. While the above described functionality is missing, no one has made a case to support it. - : 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
