I must apologize, as my original scenario probably is not representative
of the problem.
In my original scenario, hosts trying to reach 10.0.0.1 thought they
were also on the 10.0.0.0/24 network, meaning they think there's no
router involved.
This means their stack tries to ARP for 10.0.0.1 (who has 10.0.0.1 out
onto the wire) and the linux-router would respond with it's MAC for eth0
if I were to bind 10.0.0.1 to eth0 as you suggested. ("ip addr add
10.0.0.1/8 dev eth0")
I wonder if my original scenario would work at all given this problem...
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:39, George Vieira wrote:
> Why/How would the linux box broadcast it's ARP response to 10.0.0.1 when the IP doesn't belong to the firewall.. it just has a rule saying what to do if the packet arrives to it asking it to forward to that host... ARP is on different IP layer to netfilter.
> The rule doesn't make it respond to arp requests.
>
> Thanks,
> ____________________________________________
> George Vieira
> Systems Manager
> georgev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Citadel Computer Systems Pty Ltd
> http://www.citadelcomputer.com.au
>
> Phone : +61 2 9955 2644
> HelpDesk: +61 2 9955 2698
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn [mailto:core@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: George Vieira
> Cc: netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Is this correct?
>
>
> I get confused because I picture other 10.0.0.0/24 hosts arping for
> 10.0.0.1 and getting the MAC for linux-router/eth0. How is this not the
> case?
>
> Thank you all so much for the help!
