Hi,
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 07:56:47PM +0000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> > Well, what I want is to make the host an arp "proxy" on all interfaces for
> > all addresses reachable through devX. I do not want to mess with how
> > customer configures all other interfaces.
> > Right now all routes to devX are /32, for all of them proxy arp entries are
> > created by the same script, and all are happy.
> >
> > How can it be done better?
> > New mechanism of fine-grained control over proxy arp? :-)
>
> I can tell you what Alexey and Andrey will answer on netdev :)
> Make proxyarp a route flag. When arp_filter is not suitable for filtering
I may end up doing it, but I don't share Alexey's enthusiasm about
removing the options from ip and moving to some fine-grained control over
proxy arp.
I certainly prefer simpler solutions.
Solutions based on static configuration, without dynamic resolution
protocols, are simpler.
That is what I have now: I add entries, which I want to expose and to be used
for answering arp requests, one by one by `ip proxy neigh add'.
Simpler solutions are less error-prone and more easy to debug.
Andrey
> non-local input routes you can also solve the problem with the route's
> noarp flag (known in netdev). The proxyarp flag for route can allow
> the feature to work even on one device (indev==outdev) may be for NAT
> purposes), probably running send_redirects=0 (send_redirects is another
> candidate for a route flags). Of course, the target hosts should filter
> these ARP probes with a simple rp_filter policy, only our box should
> reply. We need only space for route flags and imagination :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 21:00:35 EST