Andrey Savochkin <saw@saw.sw.com.sg> writes:
>
> Checks for ARP sending via routing table is a good idea, provided that we get
> rid of the "hidden" flags. We may do it as Andi has done. Or we may do it
> in the following way: add "noarp" flag to routes, and if route lookup gives
> an entry with the flag being set, we do not send reply.
That would not work for load balancing on multi path links
(I wrote the arpfilter primarily for this purpose -- to get load balancing
for incoming connections)
> Anyway, "ARP hide" stuff is broken because it establishes additional
> unnatural relations between addresses and interfaces (instead of using
> natural terms like routes), and looks ugly being implemented.
I agree.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST