On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I see the point, but it bites sufficiently often that I don't
> > understand why there is no interesting in improving this
> > behaviour.
>
> For a large number of scenarios it makes vastly more sense.
Please forgive my obtuseness, but I am unable to conceive of
one (beyond checking that your routing is symmetrical :-)
Could you elaborate?
> > With both interfaces up, it's impossible to apply anti-martian
> > rules to the interfaces, since it's hard to predict which card
> > will answer an ARP request.
>
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/.../hidden
So when lightning fries the primary ethcard in the machine,
I have to know the hw address of the second card to get in?
Also, it can be used to scan through a dual-homed host to
determine the address range in use on the other side, which
I'd rather wasn't possible.
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/\"correct\"_arp_reply_interface_selection
maybe?
Matthew.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST